Lords Sitting of 4 May 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford

NHS: STAFF X-RAY EXAMINATIONS
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the relaxation of X-ray examination procedures for National Health Service staff proposed in Health Circular HC (78) 3 is justified.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, the circular is designed to decrease the hazards of radiation dose for National Health Service employees by eliminating unnecessary X-ray examinations, while retaining examinations in cases where they are necessary for the protection of patients or staff. The recommendations contained in the circular were endorsed by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the circular was only issued after consultation with appropriate professional bodies.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information—most of which is in fact contained in the Health Circular to which I referred—but can he tell me first how much will be saved and what economies will be effected as a result of this? Secondly, in view of what I understand to be a recrudescence of tuberculosis, which very often affects the immigrant population who work in the Health Service, will the noble Lord assure the House that he will keep this matter under very careful review?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would point out that this is a circular which is issued for guidance. It does not lay down that certain things must take place within certain periods. Since the
352
issue of that circular we have, I think, had only nine letters, none of which has called the suggestions into question. They have asked for more information.
With regard to the immigrant situation, we are aware of the difficulties there. Records show that immigrants tend to develop tuberculosis after arrival in this country. This means that if they are employed in the National Health Service and this circular, which is a matter for guidance, is acted upon, then it would deal with anything of that kind.

VIETNAM: HUMAN RIGHTS
3.8 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent reports of increasingly severe violations of human rights:in Vietnam, including the seizure of private homes and personal possessions, the forced closure of churches and pagodas, the dispossession of small traders and the mass deportations to "new economic zones" and "reeducation" camps, they will re-consider their decision to provide financial aid to assist the Government of Vietnam in obtaining merchant ships on exceptionally favourable terms.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No, my Lords. The Government are deeply concerned about violations of human rights wherever they may occur, but we doubt very much whether this particular aid offer, or its withdrawal, would have any influence either way. To withdraw the offer already made would lay the Government open to a charge of bad faith and imperil the commercial deal of which aid would form only a small part. We shall be helping to meet the needs of the British shipbuilding industry for new orders as well as the serious needs of Vietnam.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that, if aiding the British shipbuilding industry is the only criterion, one might as well provide landing craft to Cuba for use in Ethiopia,

353
Angola or anywhere else that takes the Cubans' fancy? Is the noble Baroness not aware that, quite apart from the recent increase in repression in Vietnam, over the past three years, an estimated quarter of a million people have been liquidated, a further 50,000 have committed suicide as a result of their treatment and many tens of thousands have been killed in various ways while trying to escape? Would she not agree that the British taxpayer would far rather that his or her money were spent in trying to assist some of the helpless refugees drifting about the South China Sea in fishing boats than in subsidising a ruthless, totalitarian régime?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the House will feel great sympathy with the sentiments behind what the noble Lord is saying to us, though I think perhaps his language was a little over-emotional, if he will forgive my saying so. Nevertheless, I cannot speak for all the British taxpayers. One matter about which I am absolutely certain is that they would prefer their money to be used to reduce unemployment. That is what this particular offer of aid would be going towards.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the following propositions: First, that the country of Vietnam occupies a crucial strategic position on the edges of the Free World, where it is vital for us to preserve stability; that there is no sign of that stability being preserved by Vietnam; and that the money would be better used to help the economy of Thailand, which is a free country and an ally? The second proposition is this. It amounts very nearly to misrepresentation to refer to as aid the expenditure of money to supply subsidised tonnage to a shipping market that is already oversupplied.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as the noble Lord probably knows, this is under the aid-trade contingency provision, and is not simply aid. It is, of course, an offer only at the present moment. I do not think that it ever helps the stability of the world, in however crucial a place, to leave unendurable poverty unaided. This is one of the main points of the British
354
Government's programme for aid to developing countries.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Council of Shipping has reported—and there can be no challenge as regards what it has reported—that there is a sharp decline in the number of orders for merchant ships in this country? Why should we provide favourable terms to Vietnam the result of which will be to furnish even more intense competition against British merchant shipping? Is my noble friend also aware, as regards the incidents related by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a reputable newspaper, the Guardian, reports that in Vietnam children are being used as spies against their parents?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Government are absolutely aware of the present difficulties of merchant shipping and of the views of the British Council of Shipping. However, we have played a very active part in international discussions in the OECD and other places aimed at avoiding subsidy races and the worsening of over-capacity. The British shipbuilding output has been extremely stable over the years and it is those people who have brought about over-capacity who should bear the brunt of the adjustments.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, are the Government prepared, during the course of discussions on aid to Vietnam either in the form of merchant ships or any other proposals that may be made, to raise the persecution of the Buddhist Sangha and in particular the continued imprisonment of the six Bhikkhus from the An-Kwang Pagoda in Saigon, who have been detained since April 1977, who have not been charged and not been seen by the international observer? Will the noble Baroness ask the Government whether they would permit a foreign observer to visit those Bhikkhus and ascertain their present state of health?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should find it difficult to give a commitment on the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, of course we are aware of these situations. I say

355
absolutely freely to the House, as I have said before, that it is extremely difficult to be consistent about the whole question of human rights and aid. The point is that where the poorest people in the poorest countries need to be helped, often the standards of human rights in those countries are very different from our own.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the British taxpayers are the most exploited body of taxpayers in the world? Must we now be browbeaten into aiding our enemies? As regards unemployment, the noble Baroness is advocating the way to cause unemployment—namely, to pay our customers to buy our goods, which is economic madness.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if that was a Question I shall answer it. We are, of course, aiding employment in the shipbuilding industries which are in the most deprived areas, employment-wise, of the whole country. The Government understand the difficulties of merchant shipping in general. However, all these matters must be taken into account and not equated but considered together.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does my noble friend not take the view that both the Question and the number of supplementaries that have been asked have given a very unbalanced picture of what is happening in Vietnam? My Lords, although there have been happenings which all of us would denounce, the Vietnam Government have done great, constructive work in regard to education and the economy. Is not illiteracy virtually abolished in what was Saigon, and has not the production in the devastated delta reached a record during the past two years?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not have the detailed knowledge that my noble friend has as regards literacy and the other matters he mentioned. However, I think we must preserve a sense of proportion and a sense of justice in these matters. We must also consider commercial
356
interests, aid interests and human rights interests all together. Often they have contradictory particular effects, but there is no simple answer and it is no use anybody pretending that there is.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Baroness in the pursuit of this equitable solution first of all have any reason to believe that the poor people, for whom she speaks and who survived this régime, are likely to receive any economic benefit from this offer? Is it not clear to her from what has been said in this House, or will it not be when she reads the record, that the offer which has been made is against both the humanitarian and the economic interests of this country and possibly also against the strategic interests and ought to be reconsidered?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. There is nothing strategic about the offer of cargo vessels which are only of 16,000 tons. They are small standard cargo vessels. There is nothing strategic about offering them. I think that one ought to rid one's mind of that sort of suspicion in advance.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we have had a good run on this Question and two Front Bench Questions have been asked as well.

INCOME TAX REDUCTIONS
3.18 p.m.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, may I declare that I have no personal interest in the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, which I now beg leave to ask.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer in the current financial year if the rates of tax on the bands of taxable income over £10,000 per annum were reduced by 10 per cent. and by 15 per cent. respectively.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the full year cost at 1978–1979 income levels of reducing the rates of tax concerned, after taking into account the proposals in the Budget Statement, would be about £255 million for a reduction of 10 percentage points and £385 million for a reduction of 15 percentage points.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that very precise estimate. Does she, however, not agree that the figures represent only about 1½ to 2 per cent. of the estimated yield from income tax in the current year, or, to put it another way, about two to two and a half days'-worth of Government expenditure? Will the noble Baroness not also agree that the citizens of this country suffer more from penal rates of personal taxation than almost any other citizens elsewhere in the world? Further, will she not agree that the very small, or comparatively small, loss to the Exchequer if these rates were to be reduced would be more than recouped by an upsurge in enthusiasm, enterprise and initiative which would be of great benefit to the economic good of this country?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked quite a few supplementary questions. I think he was implying that these reductions come to a trivial amount as a proportion of the cost of the Budget. However, I do not think that one can consider them as trivial in a full year cost of £2½ billion. For example, £385 million would pay for a cut of one penny in the basic rate of tax, which would, in fact, benefit a much larger number of taxpayers.
The noble Viscount referred to a comparison between tax rates in this country and in other countries. It is extremely misleading to make simple comparisons between top rates of tax—as he has done —without considering, first, the differing tax reliefs and allowances which are available here compared with those available overseas and also the heavy additional burdens—local taxes, or social security contributions—which may be faced by overseas taxpayers.
On his last point about how penal our tax system is, we must remember that, in the most recent Budget, the Chancellor
358
has tried to obtain the correct balance by helping those in the lower tax hands, by reducing the rate of tax from 34 per cent. to 25 per cent and by proposing substantial increases in the thresholds to the higher rates and the Investment Income Surcharge. Further, I would point out that a married couple earning £25,000 gain just over £750 from the Budget proposal and a man with a £10,000 taxable income—the person to whom the noble Viscount referred—in fact gains £277. Therefore it is very easy to exaggerate this.
In addition, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it quite clear that, as soon as it is possible, he intends to produce relief at both ends of the tax scale. However, this must depend on the economic situation and on our productivity generally. Finally, I do not accept that taxation itself is the only ingredient that is concerned with people's rewards and incomes.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for one of the most comprehensive replies to a supplementary question that I have ever heard in this House. I do not think that it would be acceptable to this House if I asked many more supplementary questions. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is satisfied at the continuing brain drain of senior management and skilled technicians from this country, which has accelerated over the past two or three years, due to the fact that improvements in tax allowances by the Exchequer always take place about two or three years after they should take place and have not kept up with the rate of inflation.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not accept the last supposition of the noble Viscount. As to his first supposition about people leaving the country, I would point out that a great many also return. They do not regard tax relief as the only thing that counts. Therefore, it works both ways.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that those who can earn these high sums are extremely valuable to the country: in fact, more valuable than their per capita worth?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, yes, they are valuable, but everyone is valuable to the country.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, when noble Lords opposite say that people emigrate and there is a great brain drain, it is combining incentives with a touch of blackmail? Should we not say to them, "Goodbye and Godspeed", and not "Au revoir" or "Auf Wiedersehen"?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, as regards this question of international comparison to which the noble Baroness referred, will she consult British companies who have to send their staff to serve in overseas subsidiaries for periods to see what those managers who have to serve in both countries have to say about the relative conditions?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. But the Chancellor has accepted that the top rates of tax on both earned and investment income are high. He has also been quite frank about hoping to reduce them when it is possible to do so. I can only repeat that we have to get the right balance. Also—and I apologise for repeating this—other factors are involved in living abroad compared with living in this country. These also affect people.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that wages in Europe are twice as high as they are here? A television broadcast last night showed that some highly qualified British workers go to Germany to do the most menial jobs because their earnings are so much lower here. Will not my noble friend agree that it is a wholly unwarranted assumption that material incentives are so much more important in the top stratum of society, where jobs are very interesting and where people work for the sake of social acknowledgment and social success, than in the case of those whose work is plain drudgery?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; he has put it very well.

THE TACHOGRAPH AND UNITED KINGDOM TRANSPORT VEHICLES
3.27 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will comply with any judgment of the European Court in respect of their present refusal to insist on the installation of a tachograph in British transport vehicles.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have not yet received formal notification that the Commission has decided to lodge an application on this matter with the European Court. It would therefore be premature to speculate on the outcome of such an application.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I suppose that I should thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it not a fact that under the Act of Accession we agreed to operate by a given date this very sensible resolution of, I think, the Council, which is designed to avoid abuses and preserve our roads and which, incidentally, is very popular in other Community countries and particularly appreciated by the unions?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, yes. It is the Government's wish to meet our Treaty obligations. However, as we have outlined in our response to the "Reasoned Opinion" by the Commission, there are fundamental difficulties here in the United Kingdom. A copy of the response is in the Library of the House.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the only people who gain from the present policy being pursued in this country are some disreputable cowboy drivers and some exploiting employers? That is why historically the trade union concerned always supported, until recently, this installation. Will the noble Baroness represent to her colleague, the Minister, that there is no reason why we should await the judgment of the European Court, and that there is no reason at all

361
why the Government should be paralysed by the temporary weak leadership of that union?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have problems, not all of which are on the union side. The tachograph is strongly opposed by the trade unions who regard it as a threat to their freedom and have, indeed, dubbed it as the "spy in their cab". The employers do not object to the tachographs in principle, but there is some opposition from them about its compulsory use, which is what the current argument with the Commission is all about.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness will be aware that the Government knew about this requirement many years ago. Therefore, why are the Government not doing something to educate public opinion about the advantages of the tachograph, especially as it affects road safety?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, yes, we knew about it, and on accession to the European Community we accepted the obligation to implement the regulation which provides for the compulsory installation and use of the tachograph in certain goods vehicles. It should have been installed and it should have been used in vehicles carrying dangerous goods, and in all the newly registered large vehicles, from 1st January 1976; but, as I said, there is this opposition from the trade unions, there is not complete support from the employers, and we have arrived at a deadlock. The lorries which go into Europe are fitted with a tachograph, and there are no problems with the unions about using it there. It is a question as to whether we can have the tachograph, or whether they will use the tachograph, in this country.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not answer my question.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I hope that the Government stand firm on this issue against the European Court? Once you put the "spy" in the cab you have a confrontation with the Transport and
362
General Workers' Union. No matter what is said by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who is persona non grata with that union now, and whatever the Opposition says, there will be trouble if the Government do not stand firm on the issue.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are continuing, we hope, to do some education within the unions and with the employers. There is some voluntary use of the tachograph even now on lorries in this country, and we have no objections to —and indeed welcome —the voluntary use. But it is a matter for the unions and for the employers to discuss and to come to agreement about it as they wish. When we know what the decisions of the Court are then we shall have to take a decision on what action we shall take.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is not the position that in a conflict between the Court and the unions the unions win?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, you are not to suppose that at all. But if there is a decision from the Court for the tachograph, then it will depend upon the terms that are attached to that whether we can implement it straight away or whether it means implementing it later, and it is a matter for discussion and negotiation all the time.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the compulsory use of tachographs in a domestic situation will seriously affect the earnings of drivers, and that there can be no agreement between TUC and employers on that score that is unlikely to breach the Government's Code in this matter? So is it not therefore the leadership of the Government that is required, not agreement between employer and union?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have given the leadership in Government in that we have encouraged and ensured, so far as we can, that all the lorries which proceed over to Europe are equipped with a tachograph and carry out the laws of the land concerned. Our problem is here at home. This is where we have to continue our education, if you like, or our consultation or our negotiation. But at this point of time it is a matter between the employers and the trade unions.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tachograph was first introduced in this country by Russian Oil Products, the State-owned oil firm? Is she aware that there were objections from British drivers then, and that the popular Press then said that Britons never shall be slaves? This is not a question of the British Government; it is a question of what trade union drivers will stand for in an individual way. The Conservative Party have always argued that it is a God given right to go on strike, and the way a cab driver goes on strike is by refusing to drive his cab.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my knowledge of the history of the tachograph does not go back as far as my noble friend's, but it is certain that there is opposition at present from some of the drivers within the United Kingdom. That we have to break down, and we have to try and get the employers and the unions together to honour their obligations under the Treaty if and when it becomes possible to do so.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
3.34 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Assembly Elections Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we on these Benches feel that we cannot allow this Bill to pass from this House without emphasising once again how much we deplore the failure of Parliament to provide for these elections to the European Parliament to take place on the basis of proportional representation. We believe
364
that a great injustice is being done to millions of voters in this country. They are not by any means all of one Party, although naturally members of my own Party throughout the country are bitter and angry at the decision. Liberal voters do not throw bombs and they do not shoot people, but that is no reason why they should be deprived of their proper representation.
Nevertheless, although our hands are tied behind our backs by the electoral system, the Liberal Party will take part in these elections. We hope that the directly elected European Parliament will gain in influence and authority. We wish it well, and we look forward to the day when its Members from this country will be elected in a fairer and more representative way.
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so I should like to express my gratitude to Members in all parts of the House for the help they have given us in ensuring that this Bill should make speedy progress through this House. I recognise, in so doing, the strongly held views of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and his colleagues, and indeed a number of those who voted in the Committee stage in favour of a form of proportional representation so far as these elections are concerned.
Nevertheless, it was the view of the House that regarding these first elections it was right to proceed on the basis that appeared on the face of the Bill. In addition I make the further point, as I did during Committee stage, that we recognise that this is an interim solution and that we shall have to return to this matter when the next series of elections to the European Assembly take place.
Having said that, I think it only right to bring the House up to date with the situation so far as Parliamentary approval throughout the European Community is concerned. As the House may be aware, similar legislation has now been passed in Denmark, in France, in Germany, and in the Republic of Ireland, and I understand that Bills have now been introduced in the Belgian and Luxembourg Parliaments, and that this stage should shortly be reached in Italy and the Netherlands.

365
Once the Bill has received Royal Assent the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales, will be able to make progress on the determination of the single-Member European Assembly constituencies in each country. They have naturally been giving some advanced thought to this, and should be able to publish their provisional recommendations quite soon. I understand that at least the English Commission is likely to do this by means of announcements in the national Press to enable all concerned to see how the 66 proposed constituencies relate to each other in the context of England as a whole. There will then be a period for representations to be made to the Commissions which they will consider before submitting reports with their final recommendations to the Secretary of State.
These reports will then be laid before both Houses of Parliament with a draft Order in Council giving effect to the Commission's recommendations with or without modifications. The draft Order in Council will, of course, be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in both Houses. While the Boundary Commissions are at work the Government will be preparing the draft regulations to be made under the Bill for the conduct of these elections. There will probably be two sets of regulations. One set will relate to the conduct of elections under the simple majority system in Great Britain, and the other set will relate to the conduct of elections by STV in Northern Ireland. We propose to consult the political Parties and the local authority associations in the preparation of these regulations, and to publish them in draft, perhaps as a White Paper, for public comment. The regulations, revised if necessary in the light of comments made on them, will then be laid before both Houses and will also be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
We hope the new constituencies and the detailed regulations for the conduct of elections can have been approved by Parliament by the end of November. That would give the political Parties a reasonable period of time for the selection of candidates and the candidates a reasonable period of time in which to get to know their constituencies. When the Bill has received the Royal Assent and the Council decision of September 1976 has
366
been designated as a Community Treaty under the normal Order in Council procedure, it will be open to us to ratify the Council decision. When all Member States have similarly ratified, the decision can come into effect. We are now at the final stages of a Bill of great significance. It will greatly extend the opportunity for the peoples of Europe to exercise democratic control over the institutions of the Community. I believe this is a day of high importance to this country and to the whole future of Europe.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches will join me in associating with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in recording our great satisfaction that the Bill is now to be sent on its way. It will have been a long road before the Bill receives its Royal Assent. But the result of it all—that this country is now in a position to say that we have not put ourselves into such a state that we are in effect reneging on our obligations and commitments to our European partners, and that at a time when perhaps our European partners do not regard the United Kingdom as the most co-operative of the Members of the Community—is something from which we can derive great satisfaction.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and his Party, although I do not share his concern at the form in which the Bill is leaving this House. Perhaps it will be of some consolation to him to know that, before the next direct elections to the European Parliament take place, there will have to be an agreed method of election, and it is probable, if not inevitable, that there will be a proportional element in that second election. I have no doubt that the noble Lord and his Party will be able to bring their influence to bear to get what they consider to be a more just and equitable solution.
It would not be right not to record our satisfaction that the Labour Party have apparently announced that they too are to contest the elections. It will mean, I hope, that a well-balanced team will go out from Britain next year, not that the team that my noble friends and I joined

367
in 1973 was not well-balanced, though perhaps it was a little less democratic.
On Question, Bill passed.

SCOTLAND BILL
3.44 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 50 [Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General]:
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("Majesty") to end of line 6 and insert ("on resolutions to that effect passed by both Houses of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166. We now move, I think with not too many backward glances at some of the complications of the financial provisions of the Bill, into a matter of administration. The Amendment questions the apparently rather anomalous arrangement whereby Her Majesty appoints the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and yet a completely different procedure exists for sacking him. When we say that Her Majesty appoints the Auditor General, presumably that is on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It is curious that as the Bill is drafted the Assembly, in a rather indirect way, appears to have the right to sack the person who is appointed as a watchdog over it. Perhaps this is the right moment to call attention to the rather curious language that is used and the indefinite implication:
"… may be removed … if the … Secretary of State be requested to recommend …".
That, I take it, implies that the Secretary of State need not necessarily accede to the
368
request. If so, what criteria will he use in deciding whether or not to accede to the request? The danger, it seems, is that if we allow the Assembly to have a right to remove the Auditor General, they could if they were in what one might call a bloody-minded mood go on removing successive Auditors General until they found some suitable cringeing toady who could be made to be totally ineffective. Bearing in mind the Amendments which are being discussed with this one, it would seem that the Assembly could effectively refuse to remunerate the Auditor General, which I presume comes to very much the same thing as sacking him, as it is unlikely that he would be willing to serve for nothing.
What we are asking here is whether we wish to give the Assembly an invitation to attack and an excuse for obstruction if they feel in an obstructive mood, and if the Queen makes the appointment would it not be more appropriate for Her Majesty to continue to enjoy the right to remove the Auditor General in the same way? I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not criticise the drafting of the Amendment. If he agrees with the underlying thought, we would not necessarily wish to stick to the drafting; it is designed merely to give us an excuse to discuss the underlying principle.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I accept that it is convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166 because they all appear to raise the same issue, and I will come later to the precise questions I have been asked. Before doing that, I must say in general that when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, speaking from the Front Bench of the official Opposition and talking about the Members of the Assembly sacking one Comptroller after another in order ultimately to get some cringeing toady who will be totally ineffective, I wonder whether the noble Lord really comes from the same part of the world as I do.
What kind of headhunters does he imagine inhabit the woods north of Potters Bar? I cannot say too often, though obviously I cannot say it often enough for the noble Lord, that Scotland is a civilised country with a long tradition of democracy and responsibility. When

369
it comes to auditing—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, sitting opposite me, smiling or grimacing; I cannot be sure which—I am well aware of the fact that Scotland has a great tradition in relation to auditing and accounting. I find the whole scenario here very astonishing, and it is very difficult to follow the noble Lord in his imaginings before the Committee this afternoon.
To turn to more serious matters, I should say that the Amendments confuse the responsibility for the control of devolved spending by seeking to convert the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General into an officer of Parliament, because the effect of the Amendments taken together is that he can be removed from office only upon Resolutions of both Houses of this Parliament; in other words, not by the Assembly.
The Scottish Comptroller's independence of the Scottish Administration of the day is symbolised by the fact (as we see in Clause 50(2)) that he is appointed by Her Majesty, and that his remuneration is charged directly on the Scottish Consolidated Fund, just as the salary of the United Kingdom Comptroller is charged directly on the Consolidated Fund here. But the Scottish Comptroller stands in a close relationship with the Scottish Assembly. In our view, it is important that he should be seen to be the Scottish Assembly's man, and not Parliament's man. His remit—let us be quite clear about this—extends only to devolved spending. He has no responsibilities whatsoever in relation to what I might call United Kingdom spending. He reports on devolved spending to the Assembly, and he will have to work with the Assembly Accounts Committee, which is provided for in Clause 54, which we shall reach shortly. Of course, it is essential for him to hold the confidence of, first, that Committee, and secondly, of the Assembly as a whole.
Any provisions such as those contained in these Amendments, which enable Parliament—to which the Scottish Comptroller is not responsible for the exercise of his functions—to block his removal from office against the wishes of a majority in the Assembly would, if applied in practice, inevitably destroy the Comptroller's authority and weaken the opera-
370
tion of the audit and accounting arrangements provided for in Clauses 50 to 55.
Let me make this quite clear: there would be no point in including an Amendment of this kind, and substituting this kind of procedure, dependent upon Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, unless it was intended that, from time to time, the will of the Assembly should be resisted. One may think it an astonishing proposition that the two Houses of Parliament, who really know nothing about the accounting arrangements in relation to devolved moneys, should have the sole responsibility for deciding whether or not he shall be removed from office.
Accordingly, arrangements of the kind contemplated by these Amendments, treating the Comptroller as, in effect, an officer of the House of Commons, would similarly be bound to damage the relationship of confidence between the Comptroller and the Assembly and that basis of confidence is surely a necessary basis for the effective operation of the system provided in these clauses of the Bill.
I ought to mention what the system is. The audit and accounting arrangements in the Bill depend on giving responsibility to the Assembly to exercise, through its Accounts Committee, a close scrutiny of the financial dealings of the Scottish Administration, and the interest of Parliament and the United Kingdom taxpayer, as the provider of the block fund, lies in the development of a strong Back-bench watchdog in the Assembly, and in encouraging the Assembly to carry out its scrutiny functions in a mature, responsible, and self-confident way.
By contrast, all these Amendments would derogate from the Assembly's responsibility by making the Scottish Comptroller a Parliament man. It is to the Assembly that the Scottish Administration is, in practice, responsible for its continuing existence, and only the Assembly, therefore, can ensure that it is held to account for its actions. In our view, it makes sense to make the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General answerable to the Assembly in respect of the accounting and audit arrangements.
To answer the first question that I was asked, I should say that the Auditor is appointed by the Queen upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State.

371
That would doubtless be after consultation with the Administration. When it comes to removal, the arrangements contained in the Bill are modelled exactly on those for the appointment and dismissal of the Comptroller and Auditor General for the United Kingdom. But as the Assembly does not have direct access to the Queen, a Petition for removal must be channelled through the Secretary of State. That is the usual type of provision for access to Her Majesty by, or on behalf of, the Scottish Assembly or Executive.
Whether or not the Secretary of State accedes—in other words, whether the word "may" gives him a measure of discretion—is, I believe, largely a hypothetical issue. He would certainly be reluctant to refuse to pass a Petition of this kind if it was clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General had lost the confidence of the Assembly. Indeed, if the Comptroller and Auditor General in Scotland had lost the confidence of the Assembly so much that it had resolved he should be removed from office, surely it would be almost a formality that he would be removed. I think that that answers the questions that I have been asked, and that it describes the general position. So, unless one is to take a very different view of the nature of the entire arrangements, the Amendment should not be accepted.
Lord LYELL: The noble and learned Lord has drawn second blood. First, he mentioned that cringeing toadies may have been suggested as candidates for the role of Comptroller and Auditor General over the Assembly. Then he wondered what kind of persons inhabited the great city of Edinburgh, or might fill this role of Auditor. He said that the Scottish people were indeed civilised, and he then said that we were not head-hunters—the noble and learned Lord looked in my direction. I regretfully must wonder whether the noble and learned Lord had not followed in my footsteps, when I used to study under the noble Lord, Lord Blake (who is not here). When I had finished giving my essay, the noble Lord used to say, "Yes, you've done a great deal of work, but you don't really seem to have answered the question." The question which has been in my mind, and which I believe is
372
behind Amendment No. 161, is: To whom is this Auditor General responsible? The noble and learned Lord may not be under a misapprehension here, but the Committee and other laymen, and non-accountants and non-auditors, may be. From what the noble and learned Lord has said, it seems to me that the Auditor General will be nothing more than a glorified accountant, since he will merely look at the accounts which are drawn up by the First Secretary. He will not do what I submit an auditor should do; namely, to vet and to check the accounts.
The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that it would be inconceivable and unreasonable that an Auditor General should come into conflict with the Assembly. There is an analogy here in the normal commercial and company law, in which it is quite often regarded as healthy that an auditor should come into conflict with those who are responsible for drawing up the accounts. We must remember that the auditor of a limited company, and, I think, the auditors of public bodies, are responsible not necessarily to those who draw up the accounts. To whom does the noble and learned Lord believe the Auditor General is responsible? Is the Auditor General responsible merely to the Assembly, or is he responsible to the Accounts Committee of the Assembly? Alternatively, is he responsible to the Secretary of State? This is the confusion in my mind, and, I suggest, in the minds of several Members of the Committee: and certainly the point seems to be in the mind of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
I was deeply worried that, while the clause includes all kinds of paragraphs which give various indications of how the task of the Auditor General may be facilitated, there does not appear to be a short, sharp definition of the duties of the Auditor General. I might have been able to grasp this from analogy of what the Comptroller and Auditor General might do in Parliament, but I would not necessarily believe that the duties of the Auditor General in Parliament should be analogous to those relating to the proposed Assembly. It is for that reason that I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord follows my reasoning and that which lies behind the Amendment, as well as what is in the mind of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I think that my noble neighbour knows a great deal about accounting, but I believe that he is slightly missing the point about responsibility. I have always understood that the people's representatives were elected to look after the people's interests, including those of their purse. If an Assembly is elected, it must be responsible ultimately for the proper spending of the money. Obviously, it has to appoint an auditor who will set the matter out in the proper form and giving the proper criticism but the ultimate responsibility must lie with the elected representatives of the people.
Lord LYELL: It seems that my noble neighbour Lord Mackie has once again misinterpreted the rôle of an auditor. He said—and I think I quote him accurately"The Auditor shall set out the accounts". As I understand it, and I think my noble neighbour will find that when he checks his accounts, an auditor may in theory and, in many rôles in present-day life, may indeed in practice set out accounts, but that is not his duty as an auditor. The duty of the Auditor is to check the veracity of the accounts and to see that the accounts are properly drawn up. Not only must he ensure that they are correctly drawn up, but he must check that the figures shown in the accounts are indeed correct and that nothing has been missed out nor any figures given that are in any way unrepresentative so far as that is possible.
It is not that the Auditor will just draw up accounts in a cosy relationship with the Assembly. The Auditor will be there as a watchdog. That is the role which I, and I think many others, would like to see. I take the point which the noble and learned Lord has made that the Assembly will in general be responsible, but I would submit that it is a misnomer to have an auditor if he is just going to set out some accounts which will then be checked over or looked at by the Accounts Committee. The Auditor is the watchdog and it is he who will have the teeth.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has read Clause 53. If he has not I would invite him to do so. Clause 53 provides that,
"For each financial year … accounts shall be prepared by Scottish Secretaries".
It is clear therefore that the preparation of accounts is done by them. Let me
374
read the words in Clause 53(2), which I am sure are clear enough:
"The accounts prepared under subsection (1) above shall be sent to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General not later than the end of November following the end of the financial year to which they relate; and he shall examine, certify and report on the accounts and lay copies of them, together with his report, before the Assembly".
If that does not answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on the next page of the Bill, then I do not know what will. I cannot improve on that wording, which everyone must understand.
The noble Lord asks me about removal from office and the question of responsibility. The Auditor is responsible in a unique way—perhaps I should not say unique—the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the United Kingdom is unique, and the position of the Scottish Comptroller in Scotland is the exact analogue of that. He is appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. Politically, one could not envisage that the Secretary of State would not make such a recommendation without consultation with the Assembly. That is his appointment.
When it comes to removal, that is provided for under Clause 50(3). There are two ways in which he may be removed from office: first, this can be done at his own request. He asks to be removed from office and is relieved of office by Her Majesty. Secondly, he may be removed from office by the Secretary of State following upon a resolution of the Assembly. Again, I do not need to do anything other than point to the terms of the Bill itself. If that does not answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, perhaps he will tell me and I shall come back to it.
Lord LYELL: Probably I have ridden my personal hobby-horse far enough today—I hear noises of assent behind me. The noble and learned Lord has answered half the question with his reference to Clause 53(2). It outlines some of the duties of the Auditor, but he might also have other duties. I should like to leave the matter there.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord may like to leave the matter there, but I do not. I should like to know what part of his question I have left unanswered?
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I have in mind Clause 50(5) and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can tell the Committee what impact, if any, the Government anticipate these arrangements having on the Department of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am not at all sure what the noble and learned Lord wants me to say. I presume that in the Department of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General there are some Scots who suffer from a longing for their native heath, and that, given the opportunity and the salaries to attract them back to their native heath, they will take it. In that sense, there might be an impact. I cannot think of any other kind of impact.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I did have in mind the possibility that it would have some impact on the career structure of people at present in the Department. I should have thought that the Government would have had regard to this in the preparatory work which they have no doubt carried out for this measure.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We are coming shortly to an Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede upon which we shall discuss the general position of the Civil Service, but I think the question raised by the noble and learned Lord is answered by looking at Clause 62 of the Bill, which states that:
"Service as an officer or servant of … the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state",
and, as we know, there are many civil servants who in pursuance of their own advancement in their careers quite properly move from one department to another. This is just another department to which some people may move.
Earl FERRERS: I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would clarify one point. I understand that if the Assembly wishes the Comptroller and Auditor General to be removed it can request the Secretary of State to request Her Majesty to remove him. What happens if the Assembly makes this request? The word used is "resolve" which is a fairly stout word. They
376
"resolve" that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be removed. Is the Secretary of State obliged to act on that resolution or does he have discretion? Suppose the Secretary of State does not wish to operate on that, is he obliged to?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Earl will look at the wording of the Bill. It reads:
"The Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General … may be removed from office by Her Majesty".
It would be quite improper to put in a statute such words as, "The Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General shall be removed from office by Her Majesty on a resolution of the Assembly." That is the reason for that wording. The Auditor is answerable to the Assembly, subject to the uniqueness of his position as I have described it, and it would be unthinkable for him not to be removed upon a resolution of the Assembly. The reason for the word "may" is evident from the fact that he holds the appointment uniquely from Her Majesty.
Earl FERRERS: I thought that the word "may" was the appropriate word to use in allowing Her Majesty discretion. I did not know that it was to allow the Secretary of State discretion. I gather from what the noble and learned Lord said that that is so and that, after a resolution is passed, the Secretary of State will have discretion as to whether or not to advise Her Majesty to act upon the resolution.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I explained that the intervention of the Secretary of State fits in with the general scheme of the Bill, which is that there is no direct access to Her Majesty by the Assembly or the Scottish Executive; so whenever there is need for access that access is always routed through the Secretary of State. If you look at the construction of Clause 50(3)(b) you will see that the word "may" relates to Her Majesty, and that is very proper. As far as the Secretary of State is concerned the construction of that conditional clause is that,
"if the Assembly resolves that the Secretary of State be requested to recommend the removal to Her Majesty",
Her Majesty may remove.
Earl FERRERS: I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly; I am afraid I must explain myself very badly. The question which I put to the noble and learned Lord is this: The Assembly passes a resolution saying that it has no confidence and it, the Assembly, would like the Comptroller and Auditor General to be removed. Does that resolution compel, as it were, the Secretary of State to request Her Majesty, or does the Secretary of State have discretion whether or not to act upon that resolution?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think I am right in saying—and if I am wrong I shall seek an opportunity to correct myself before we leave these clauses—that on a proper construction of this clause the Secretary of State simply has to convey the request to Her Majesty.
Lord HUGHES: If it should prove, on examination, that it is not absolutely clear that the Secretary of State is merely a channel in this matter, and that he will do what the Assembly asks, it would be possible to re-word the clause, without impinging on the "may" for Her Majesty, by inserting a "must" for the Secretary of State. I would not wish this to be done unless it was absolutely necessary, because I am quite certain that what my noble and learned friend has said is what is going to take place. If the Assembly were to resolve to have the Comptroller and Auditor General removed, it would be most unlikely that any Secretary of State would wish to take upon himself the difficult task of refusing to do so. But one could not say it was totally impossible that that situation would arise; and if it is the intention that the Secretary of State should not have such a discretion and it is possible to put it in the Bill—this is on the assumption that the Bill gives him a discretion at the moment, which is really not desired—then I would suggest to my noble and learned friend that he should look at it from that point of view.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to my noble friend for that suggestion; but I understand that these clauses are all modelled upon the position of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General, and I shall be surprised if I do not find that the wording here is justified on that basis. If I do not, I shall return and tell your Lordships.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Can the Minister tell the Committee when the last Auditor General was removed by this method in the United Kingdom?
Lord McCLUSKEY: It may even have been before the start of the debate this afternoon, which is quite a long time ago.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I had no intention of trespassing upon his patience, as we have in fact done in this matter. I did not realise we were going to stir up the auditors, who appear to be almost as formidable and perhaps as long-winded as the lawyers when they get going. But I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying the concept and the function of the Auditor General, about which I think some of us may have been in some doubt. It seems—and it sounds rather rude to say it—that what we have ended up by saying is that the Secretary of State is a mere messenger boy here. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, because this was something which we wanted to bring out when I originally moved this Amendment. If that is the intention, I am all for saying so; and I am not necessarily tremendously impressed by any precedent which the noble and learned Lord might be able to rake up, because we have not had an Assembly before.
I am not totally convinced of the logic of the noble and learned Lord's argument, however, because he said that the matter of removal was almost a formality; and one ends up by feeling that if it is logic that the Queen shall appoint the Auditor General, then it would equally be logical for the Queen to remove him. To put it another way, if the Assembly is to have the right to remove the Auditor General, why, then, does the Assembly not have the right to appoint him? The original reason why we raised this point at all is that it did not seem logical to have a different way of doing the two parts of the same exercise. But I really do not think we want to make a great deal of this, and unless the noble and learned Lord wishes to say anything further I am quite happy to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord TANLAW Lord TANLAW moved Amendments Nos. 364 and 365:
Page 26, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Page 26,line 11, after ("officers") insert (",certified accountants")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I think it would be helpful if my Amendments Nos. 364 and 365 were considered at the same time. These are two probing Amendments, in an attempt to try to open up a short discussion on the constitution and operation of the Scottish Auditor General's office. They are prompted, really, by what was reported in column 1689 of the Commons Hansard, where complaints were made in another place that this matter did not get a proper airing; and I think this may be a suitable opportunity, very briefly, to remedy that.
If I may take up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, he said that most of the institutions in the Scottish Bill are really extensions of existing institutions or systems of government in the United Kingdom; and as he rightly said, the Auditor General's office is one of them. It is my contention that when we have problems with this Bill it is not necessarily the case that the Bill is wrong, but possibly that the institution may be wrong, or not entirely right, in the first place. It is my view that the Auditor General's office and system of accounting—and I am on record in your Lordships' House for complaining about this in another context —is not entirely perfect. In these Amendments it is my concern to get some reassurances from Her Majesty's Government that the Scottish Auditor General's office will be, if anything, somewhat stronger and more informative than I believe it to be in relation to the accounts of the United Kingdom.
The reason why I have taken out the word "may" and inserted the word "shall", and have asked that the Auditor General's office should include certified accountants—and, for the want of a better description, this phrase would cover qualified accountants, chartered accountants or accountancy experts—is because, as some noble Lords will recall, during the inquiry into the Crown Agents' affairs there were certain criticisms of the Auditor
380
General's Department for an apparent lack of qualified personnel. Therefore, when I saw that in the Bill there was no particular mention of certified accountants or qualified accountants, I set down these two Amendments in order to ask the Government whether they could give me an assurance that there were going to be plenty of accountancy skills in the Auditor General's office. Another point which occurred to me, again from the Fay Committee's Report, was that it would appear that the Auditor General's office—and I stand to be corrected here—was unable to carry out its own internal audit in order to investigate the Crown Agents' affairs. I do not think that is a satisfactory situation if it is true, and what I should like to ask the Government is whether the Scottish Auditor General's Department or office will be capable and competent to carry out an internal audit of its own affairs. This second Amendment is really to ask whether it is capable of doing so.
I should also be interested to know—and I believe it to be relevant—how many certified accountants are at present employed by the United Kingdom Auditor General's Department, which has control over, I think, about £70 billion of taxpayers' money, and how many certified accountants will be employed by the Scottish Auditor General's Office. Simply by having these questions answered I hope to be reassured that Her Majesty's Government have got things better—I say "better" advisedly—than what I believe to be the existing set-up in the Auditor General's office for dealing with the accounts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, without saying any more, I beg to move these two Amendments.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clear way in which he has expounded the meaning behind his two Amendments. It is customary in legislation to empower holders of statutory offices to appoint supporting staff rather that to oblige them to do so. Other examples arise in the Scotland Bill. In Clause 20(9) a Scottish Secretary "may" appoint such officers and servants as he thinks tit. In Clause 29(2) the Clerk of the Assembly "may" appoint officers and servants of the Assembly. There is no distinction of purpose between these provisions and Clause 50(5) and the

381
Government consider the customary enabling formula to be the appropriate one in the case of the Scottish Comptroller. The wording used in Clause 50(5) is, in fact, the same as that used in Section 8(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act 1921 in relation to the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give any information about the number of qualified people employed in the United Kingdom Department. That I cannot do off the cuff, but if the information is readily available I will write to the noble Lord before we get to the next stage of the Bill. We do not see that there is any need to insist that the Scottish Comptroller must appoint staff. The duties imposed on the holder of this office by the Bill are such that they could not be fulfilled single-handed. It is necessary to provide that the numbers should be approved by the Scottish Administration because the costs of the Scottish Comptroller's department will fall on the block fund. But it would be fanciful to suggest that the Scottish Administration would starve him of staff. If they tried to do so, they could find difficulty in obtaining the credits they require from him in order to obtain payments from the Scottish Consolidated and Loans Funds. Any undue restrictions placed on audit staff would certainly be drawn attention to by the Assembly's Accounts Committee in its reports to the Assembly, as provided for in Clause 54, which must be published as provided for in Clause 55.
On the question of what staff the Comptroller will appoint, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is justifiably anxious to ensure that there will be an appropriate complement of qualified accountants. But there are other types of experts (for example, in the computer field) who will also be needed and, as further specialisms develop in the future, doubtless other categories will emerge. It is not for the Bill to say how the Scottish Comptroller's staff is to be made up any more than Parliament has dictated to the United Kingdom Comptroller whom and how many he should employ. We must take as a starting-off point that the Scottish Comptroller will be a highly responsible senior officer and that his performance of his duties will he closely watched by the Assembly's Accounts Committee.
382
Under Clause 62 the Comptroller's staff will be members of the United Kingdom Civil Service, to be recruited under the national Civil Service regulations. There will be scope, if those concerned wish to take advantage of it, for common recruitment and common training alongside the staff of the United Kingdom Comptroller. The United Kingdom Comptroller will still require to maintain staff in Scotland to deal with Government Departments there (including the Scottish Office), and there may well be scope for interchange of staff and for sharing of some common facilities. These are all matters of detailed staff arrangements and management, however, depending on agreement not only of the United Kingdom and Scottish Comptrollers but also of their staffs. They are not matters on which the Government should express a definitive view, and, therefore, not matters for the Bill. On the question as to how the Fay Report was not allowed to intervene in the Crown Agents, at the moment that is something on which I cannot intervene since the Crown Agents are now sub judice.
Lord VAIZEY: There is a difficulty which the noble Baroness raises when she refers to the staff of the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General and the Scottish Auditor General working side by side. Hitherto this has been one career service. Now, supposing that the Assembly appoints its own people—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General being the Assembly's own man—I cannot see the logic behind the creation of a separate career structure for a group of people who are going to be working hand in hand. One group will be working for the United Kingdom chap and the other group for the Scottish fellow. Presumably, as they move up the ladder, they will be weaving in and out. If there is any meaning in this clause in giving the Assembly power—as does the subsequent clause—to determine the salaries, I cannot see the argument against it being one service at the present time. Can the noble Baroness elucidate?
Baroness STEDMAN: It is going to be one service. It is one home Civil Service. When we come to Clause 62 we shall be having a long debate on the Amendment

383
of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby as to whether there should be a separate Scottish Civil Service. At this point in time, the Bill envisages one public service. They will be able to transfer between branches as they can now. They will be able in some cases, we hope, perhaps to combine what they are doing and to share some of the facilities. This is something which the Scottish Administration must sort out and it is not something which we ought to be writing into the Bill.
Lord TANLAW: I must thank the noble Baroness for the helpful and quite detailed reply she gave to the questions I asked. I had hoped perhaps, in view of the report, the name of which escapes me, about a certain deficiency in the Auditor General's office, that this might have been an opportunity to rectify any future criticism that the Scottish Auditor General's Department could incur. I accept what the noble Baroness has said and, in view of her remarks, I beg leave to withdraw both Amendments Nos. 364 and 365.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
4.27 p.m.
Lord TANLAW Lord TANLAW moved Amendment No. 366:
Page 26, line 17, after ("on") insert ("audited").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 366 and, at the same time, speak to Amendments Nos. 367, 368 and 369. This, again, is a series of probing Amendments. At the outset, I may say that the fact that I have put them down is possibly due to my not being an accountant. The Consolidated Fund account for the United Kingdom, the entire United Kingdom fund (covering £70 billion of taxpayers' money) appears on two printed sheets containing about 18 entries. At the end of those accounts the Auditor General does not certify that —and this is where I could be accused of being naive—"This is a true and fair view of the financial picture", as is usually the case with any accounts in the world of commerce.
The question that I would ask is this: Are these accounts? I mean by this that they are of no help to me or to someone
384
who has had experience in the commercial world. As a means of interpreting how the money has been spent, they are of no commercial use. This could be dangerous, particularly in the Scottish Assembly, where they have a block fund for which the Assemblymen have to account as good stewards. They must spend it as cautiously as only Scotsmen know how; they must make every penny count to the benefit of their constituents and of Scotland as a whole. If this kind of presentation is all they are going to get—and I hope the noble Baroness will put me right on this —in my view that is not good enough for Scotsmen. It might be good enough for Englishmen or for the Government at Westminster; but we have the opportunity here to ask the Government to have more open accountability in terms of the Scottish nation.
There is another tendency which perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm, for I may have got it wrong. As Government, inevitably, take a greater interest in commercial entities in the private sector, so do the Government's accounts become less revealing. On the other hand, those companies and entities in the private sector must by law become more and more committed for information, form filling and so on. What is worrying is that, with the Scottish Assembly there are a number of (for want of a better phrase) "hybrid entities"—commercial entities which have capital partly from the private sector and partly from the public sector.
Again, from the viewpoint of an accountant, this needs rather sophisticated techniques if in fact a true and fair picture of entities such as the Scottish Development Agency, its investments and so on, are to be interpreted by ordinary Assemblymen who may not necessarily be very good at figures. They will have to speak out and be responsible for these figures, while the Auditor General is in the role, taking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, as an auditor to a commercial company, who is responsible to the shareholders and not to the directors. In the same way, the Auditor General is responsible to the Assembly and to the people of Scotland, and not to the Executive.
I think there is an opportunity in this Bill to improve the existing system of

385
audit. I am not entirely convinced that the Auditor General set-up is the best that can be devised, and this Bill gives us an opportunity to improve on it. Perhaps the noble Baroness will reassure me on these factors, and particularly as regards the form the accounts will take. Are they to be a form of accounts? In my Amendment I have used the word "audited" simply because it is a word which I and most people are familiar with, at any rate those who have had any connection with business, from a sweetie shop to a steel mill. If they are in that form, I think the Assemblymen will be able to follow them. If they are in the form of the Consolidated Fund account that we have here—these flimsy bits of paper which the Auditor General does not seem to sign; and which I do not understand them, I do not think the Assemblymen will understand them either when it comes to the very difficult job of having to explain to their constituents how they have spent their money or how the Executive has spent their money. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to help me here.
I should like to add one brief point concerning the Accounts Committee, the "watch dog" to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Again my remarks about the Assemblymen should apply equally to the comprehension of the "watch dogs" on the Accounts Committee in Scotland. This again is perhaps giving us an opportunity to improve on our existing system. In my view, the Public Accounts Committee is the most important committee in Parliament, and its work is perhaps more important than any other which comes to mind. In regard to Scotland I think we could improve the system of working here. Could we not include among the members of the "watch dog" committee those who are not necessarily involved in the Assembly but who have outside business experience, who could possibly give some very good and sensible advice, especially in the areas which are part public sector and part private and commercial? I think there is going to be a lot of difficulty in finding out what is going on in them and there will be dangers, unless there is clear comprehension on the part of the Assemblymen and of the Accounts Committee, that large sums of money may be mismanaged or mislaid, simply due to having
386
accounts which, in my view, are not readily understandable by those who are not accountants.
I hope the noble Baroness will see these Amendments as an attempt to be constructive and not as an attempt to throw shots at the Government, the Auditor General's office or the Public Accounts Committee. I hope it may be an attempt to improve the existing system under which our country is run today and on which I have many reservations.
4.34 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: In the interesting speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, he ranged very wide of this Amendment by wanting to simplify the accounts. He went into the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the Amendments he has put forward have nothing to do with the Comptroller and Auditor General. They are Amendments to subsections (6) and (7), which relate to the situation when there may not be a Comptroller and Auditor General, or when for some reason he is unable to carry out his function. These two parts relate to the authority given to someone else to do the job.
When my noble and learned friend, in replying to the previous Amendments and to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, about an auditor, drew attention to Clause 53(2), and particularly referred to the words:
"he shall examine, certify and report on the accounts …",
that seemed to me to be a perfectly straightforward statement of the ordinary duties of an auditor. There would have been no doubt about it at all if instead of the word "examine" there appeared the word "audit". But I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the wording in the Bill as it stands means exactly that.
The same thing will apply in the circumstances of the section which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is seeking to amend. But it raises in my mind the question as to why the word "examine" has been omitted in subsection (7), because in Clause 53(2) the Comptroller and Auditor General is to
"… examine, certify and report on the accounts …",
and in his absence the authorised person is merely to "certify and report". I

387
am quite certain it does not mean that there is anything different.
This is probably just a drafting error, but obviously the same set of circumstances are to apply. I think it is quite clear that in both circumstances a complete audit of the accounts is being carried out and the certification of them will be carried out and they will be reported. Therefore, while the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, may have a point about simplifying the accounts so that the ordinary Member of the Assembly will be able to understand them, I would doubt very much whether, with the complicated nature of public expenditure these days, it would be within the wit of any accountant to put them forward in a way in which the ordinary Member of the Assembly could understand them.
Lord TANLAW: If I might just answer that last point of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I did not mean to give the impression that I wanted the accounts over-simplified. I merely made the point that I am used to looking at audited accounts, and the Consolidated Fund accounts for the United Kingdom are the only ones I have managed to find. Presumably the Scottish Assembly Consolidated Fund accounts will look rather similar, although of course I stand to be corrected on that. In my view, these are not accounts and they are not very informative. The point I wished to make was that if the presentation is in the form of audited accounts, I can understand it. I did not wish the accounts to be oversimplified.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: Would the noble Lord not agree that the Consolidated Fund account to which he referred is a synopsis of the spending of the Government, and that is broken down in detail and is available for examination by Members of Parliament? If you take the Scottish Development Agency, which may be incorporated in the Consolidated Fund account—that is the two-page document which has been referred to—you can make reference to the accounts of the Scottish Development Agency and the account of their stewardship, as you can with other Government Departments, if you want to make the detailed examination that is now being sought. This bill in no way inhibits that examination.
4.40 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: On the assumption that this is a serious Amendment and not a probing exercise, I beg to offer a few observations, or rather a number of questions, if I have the permission of my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I was struck by a remark, which he made earlier on in the course of this very interesting, but somewhat technical, debate, that many Scots who had left the native heath would probably return, the incentive being salaries on a somewhat higher scale than they had been accustomed to on this side of the Border. I was very much struck by that. But I was struck even more by the wide-ranging observations of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and I want to ask a simple question. I think that it is always better to ask simple questions that are not technical, even if one gets technical replies. My question is this: What is all this going to cost? Let me just run over the list. We start off with a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. That is two of them.
Lord HUGHES: No, that is one.
Lord SHINWELL: It is not a Siamese twin, is it? Then he may appoint officers and servants. There was a suggestion that it ought to be mandatory and not a matter of discretion. So we can assume that quite a number of others will be appointed; and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, quite properly asked that one of them should be a certified accountant. For Heaven's sake! let us be very careful indeed if we are indulging in expenditure in Scotland. We must avoid anything in the nature of corruption. So we must have the right people on the job. Anyway, there will be quite a number of others. Then Clause 51 states:
"There shall be paid to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General such salary as the Assembly may from time to time determine".
How much it is to be, we have no idea at all. There has been a great deal of talk about these people. There will be quite an assembly of people in this Assembly, or on the perimeter of the Assembly, looking after the finances, holding the purse, if the money is provided by Westminster. That is where the money has to come from, and Westminster can provide it only if the taxpayers are willing

389
to cough up. But I suspect that many of them will not want to cough up too much, to enable the Scots to play around with the finances of the United Kingdom—and, apparently, they will be permitted to do that. Nothing at all has been said about that.
My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General has argued at great length—I will not say that he was verbose, because that might sound offensive and the last thing I want to do is to be offensive to him, in spite of what he said about me last night. I almost had a sleepless night after being rebuked by such a legal luminary, all the way from Edinburgh. Your Lordships know what Edinburgh folk are like. When you have lived in Glasgow you do not have much time for Edinburgh folk, but you have to tolerate them. But I am digressing a little, although a little digression will not do us any harm. This place is very dull and it needs livening up.
I want to put a simple question and I want a simple answer. A simple question should evoke a simple answer, straight from the horse's mouth. What is all this going to cost, or have the Government not thought this out at all? Have they just said "Let us have an Assembly, and let us have a Scottish Comptroller who is an Auditor General, too"—or whatever it may be—"a certified accountant and a whole string of people, very important people, very efficient people, looking after the finances associated with the Consolidated Fund", because it will all come out of the Consolidated Fund, as is the case with United Kingdom finances. On how much it is going to cost, there has been not a word. Nobody, has asked any questions about it and certainly, so far as I know, nothing about it appears in the Bill. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, as if to suggest that there is something in the Bill about the actual amounts that are to be expended.
I know that in the Bill there are references to payments that are to be made for this and that, and, naturally, those payments have to be made, as has expenditure for salaries, administration and so on. But I have not yet discovered what it will cost for the Assembly to meet somewhere. I saw in the Press that it could cost £3 million or £4 million for this institution. I do not know where
390
that money is coming from. Anyhow, I think that we ought to have some answer to the question. It is all right 10 indulge in these technical, complicated observations, but we ought to know something about what it will cost.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lady Stedman is to reply. If she is, I do not know where she will get her information from. I had better correct myself. I said earlier on that I want an answer straight from the horse's mouth. I withdraw that, but I will not say what occurs to me. I shall leave it at that. I am quite serious about this. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, provoked me into asking this question, because he ranged so widely over the whole scenario—
Lord TANLAW: The noble Lord has, quite rightly, raised a point about the cost. But in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, there is a paragraph which shows that the Auditor General's department and all the civil servants for the Assembly will cost approximately £6½ million.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if there are provisions in this measure to appoint people to undertake certain tasks associated with finance, then we are obviously entitled to ask what it will cost. I do not ask for details about salaries. That would be asking too much, and I would not expect them to be given accurately. But I ask for some indication of what this will cost the taxpayers. I am speaking of United Kingdom people, in particular, although to some extent of Scottish people. I want to know what it will cost. and if I do not get an answer to this question I shall have to find some Amendment which will enable me to go into the Division Lobby against the Government, and that may be very serious for the Government.
I want to make an apology for my interventions. The reason why I am intervening so often is not that I am knowledgeable on this subject—far from it. It is because I am indulging in a little practice in speaking, in readiness for the next General Election. I have been receiving innumerable invitations from all over the place, asking whether I would be ready at the next Election to go and speak on behalf of candidates and so on,

391
and I have to be ready for that. In fact, I am doing my Front Bench friends, even the Solicitor-General, a favour. I go out to speak and try to keep them in office. I am doing them a favour, for which they ought to be grateful. But I am indulging in a little practice, so that I am ready for the fray. That is my reason for intervening so frequently. I return to the original simple question. What is this going to cost?
4.49 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The noble, venerable and somewhat mischievous Lord Shinwell has raised a very serious point, and it is that point which my noble friend Lord Tanlaw was taking up in trying to get modern standards of accounting into Government Departments. I think that in 1976–77 the Government wanted to save money, but their saving was so successful that they underspent by, I think, some £3 billion. The reason why they had to save money was that the year before they overspent in the country as a whole by some very much larger figure.
I happen to know, for example—the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has great experience of a wide variety of business—that in many companies they can now budget for inflation. In many cases their end of year accounts are coming out extremely accurately. These budgeting techniques are new and are constantly being improved. I do not say that in every case they work perfectly, but the degree of accuracy which is being arrived at in business firms, large and small, as a result of this new budgeting technique, which requires very good accounts and very good accounting so that the information one works on for the future is accurate, is surprising. I believe that the spirit behind my noble friend's Amendment is one which we need to take into account, since it might greatly assist in telling us beforehand exactly what Government proposals in various forms are going to cost.
Lord LEATHERLAND: One of the things that I decided to do early in life was to dedicate myself to keeping my noble friend Lord Shinwell apprised of the facts of any situation. Therefore I do
392
so on this occasion. My noble friend said that we do not have the slightest idea what this Bill will cost. If my noble friend will turn to page vi of the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, he will find set out there the details of the cost. For example, we read that about £3¼ million will be required for reconstructing and equipping the former Royal High School and parts of St. Andrew's House for the use of the Scottish Assembly. That includes £650,000 for acquiring the Royal High School buildings and £1,350,000 on works already authorised. I am going into great detail because my noble friend wants it; he does not want rough and ready figures.
Then we read that about £1 million will be spent on the reconstruction and equipment of office accommodation. The additional annual running costs will be about £6¾ million in respect of the salaries and related costs of Members of the Scottish Assembly and Executive—it sounds as though they are going to do pretty well; much better than your Lordships—and about £6¼ million in respect of additional civil servants in Scotland. Then it goes on to say, and I ask my noble friend to pay attention to this as he stressed during his speech that he wanted to know how much the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff would cost, that the £6¼ million includes the staff of the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and related costs, including accommodation costs. It even includes the cost of the offices in which they shall work and the chairs upon which they shall sit. Finally, we read that the cost of the referendum will be broadly £2 million. All the questions which my noble friend asked with regard to finance and costs are adequately answered in the passages to which I have referred your Lordships.
Lord SHINWELL: I am very grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to these details. I have some acquaintance, as has my noble friend, with estimates provided by Governments or civil servants and I should be very reluctant to accept all of the estimates which my noble friend has read out. It will cost a great deal more than that. Taking everything into account, it is a large sum of money which will be expended. May I ask my noble friend whether any mention is made of the Members of the Scottish Assembly?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Yes, I drew my noble friend's attention to that. If he will look three-quarters of the way down page vi he will see that about £,61 million will be spent annually in respect of the salaries and related costs of Members of the Scottish Assembly and Executive. I interposed in parenthesis that it looked as though they were going to do pretty well—in fact, very much better than Members of your Lordships' House.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am quite sure that when he moved his Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, did not expect to have quite such an entertaining or interesting debate. The noble Lord said that he was not an accountant. May I say to him that when I came to your Lordships' House I was put on one of the European. Scrutiny Committees. The first job that we had to do was to decide how balance sheets and accounts, which were completely foreign to me, were drawn up. I am afraid that I have to tell him that this still did not make me an accountant, so I can assure the noble Lord that that makes two of us who are trying to make the best of this Bill!
Under Clause 53(2), the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General has a duty to "examine, certify and report on" the accounts of the Scottish Administration. This is what we understand as the process of audit. The word "audit" is regularly used in Statute as a verb or as a noun to cover all the stages in that process. An account has not been audited until the whole process has been completed. Where the accounts which are referred to in a provision of the Bill have been through the whole process, it is unnecessary to refer to them as "audited" accounts. Where they have not been through the whole process, it is wrong to refer to them as "audited" accounts. Therefore the case for the insertion of the term "audited", as proposed by each of these Amendments, will have to be looked at separately in each provision concerned.
Lord TANLAW: May I ask the noble Baroness whether that includes the words, "This is a true and fair view", and so on, which an auditor normally appends to accounts?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, that covers the same point. If I may deal with the noble Lord's first Amendment, Amendment No. 366 to Clause 57, that relates to the delegation of authority by the Scottish Comptroller to a member of his staff to certify and report on accounts. The certifying and reporting concerned forms part of the process of audit, but it is wrong to refer to the accounts as being audited until these tasks have been completed.
Turning to the next Amendment, Amendment No. 367—this is the Amendment to Clause 53(1)(a)—we think that this also is wrong. The accounts referred to are those prepared by Scottish Secretaries for sending to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. By definition, therefore, as I explained earlier they also are not audited accounts in the strict sense of the word. Turning to Amendment No. 368, the accounts referred to in Clause 54(1) are accounts which have been examined, certified and reported on by the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and laid by him before the Assembly. By definition, therefore, these are audited accounts, and to describe them as such is not necessary.
On the last Amendment, Amendment No. 369 to Clause 55, that refers to the publication of the accounts referred to in Clauses 53 and 54. By the time these reach the Assembly for publication they must have been audited, so again it is not necessary to describe them as such. It all sounds very complicated, but when the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read Hansard it will all fall into place.
Regarding the noble Lord's Amendments and also the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about trying to modernise the accounting procedure, if it is the intention of these Amendments to try to modernise that procedure, that is not their effect so far as this Bill is concerned. It is essential that the Socttish Administration's financial arrangements and those of central Government, upon which the Scottish Administration will be wholly dependent for funds, should be of the same general nature.
The arrangements are laid down in Clauses 50 to 55 and they are modelled on the Westminster arrangements. Under Clause 53, each Scottish Secretary must

395
keep the accounts for his department and the Scottish Secretary responsible for finance must keep accounts for payments into and out of the Scottish Consolidated and Loans Funds. The accounts must be sent not later than the end of November following the end of the financial year concerned—that is, within a period of eight months—to the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, who will then examine, certify and report on them; or, to put it more simply, he will audit them. The accounts themselves and the audit reports are then to be laid before the Assembly. In turn they must be examined and reported on by the Assembly's Accounts Committee. The accounts themselves and the reports by the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Assembly's Accounts Committee must all be published, as provided for in Clause 55. Therefore, public opinion will be able to monitor the operation of these arrangements.
If we want any radical reorganisation of Government accounting and auditing procedures, it has to begin here at Westminster and not with the Scottish Assembly and therefore not in this Bill. Any radical reorganisation that we considered in the future needed to take place at Westminster could, if necessary, be carried through to the Scottish Administration's auditing arrangements by the Westminster legislation. So if we decide to modernise the whole of our accounting system in the future we still do not need to do it under this Bill as it stands at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell asked questions about the cost. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leatherland for reading out in detail what it says in the Financial Memorandum and I do not think I need weary the Committee by going into it again. However, I should like to remind my noble friend that the Accounts Committee is a Back-Bench Committee of the Assembly and therefore we cannot include outsiders on it, though there is nothing at all to prevent that Back-Bench Committee from engaging expert help from outside if they think that is necessary. The exact form of accounts to be adopted under devolution is a matter for the Scottish administration and for the Assembly, dependent, inter alia, on the organisation of the administra-
396
tion of its Departments and these domestic matters really must be left to Scotland and the Scottish Assembly to decide. We do not think the noble Lord has achieved quite what he set out to achieve in the Amendment in the way of modernisation of accounts and I hope that in the light of my explanation he will accept that this Amendment and those following are not necessary.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like the noble Baroness to explain an apparent contradiction. I thought she said that any modernisation of accounts in Scotland would have to follow modernisation in England and then she went on later to say what I very much more approved of, that when the Assembly was set up it could in fact modernise its accounts.
Baroness STEDMAN: I think that either I have been misunderstood or else I did not phrase my words as well as I could have done. I said that any radical reorganisation of Government accounting and auditing procedures—because one flows from the other—would have to begin at Westminster and not with the Scottish Assembly, but that, if there was any radical reorganisation of accounting methods here at Westminster, it could if necessary be carried through to the Scottish administration's auditing arrangements by Westminster legislation. At the same time, so far as the Scottish Assembly is concerned, it is a matter for its Public Accounts Committee, the Assembly and its Auditor General and Comptroller to decide how its Finance Department shall be run and how the accounts shall be presented in the light of what Departments it is decided to have within the Scottish Assembly. I hope that makes it clearer.
Lord TANLAW: We have had a most interesting discussion on what is usually thought of as a rather boring and technical subject, namely accounts. I also think that we have filled the gap that was left in another place by having at least a fuller discussion of these clauses. I thank the noble Baroness for the very detailed reply which she gave to each individual Amendment that I tabled. I did not realise that there were quite so many meanings of the term "audit" until she made her reply. I think she has answered the letter of my question if not exactly the spirit.

397
I am slightly depressed that the Scottish Assembly will have to soldier on until eventually one day the accounting systems and investigations in to the accounting systems of the Auditor General's Department and the Public Accounts Committee grind into the 20th century down here in Westminster, but possibly with a little pressure here and a little pressure there we may bring that day further forward.
Finally, I should like to come back to something which has been said throughout this debate—that is, that the control of expenditure of the block fund has been identified as possibly the main source of contention in virtually every clause that we have discussed in this Bill. I hope we can be assured that the Assembly, which we have now been told will have excellent and audited accounts will also have a system of budgetary forecasting and discounted cash flows on capital projects that will assist the Assembly to reduce this area of contention which has been raised in various other parts of the Bill. I hope that in that way it will defuse some of the so-called "dynamite" that some noble Lords think is contained in this Bill. I should also like to think that it might give a lead to Whitehall, although we know now that it cannot do so. Nevertheless, we hope for something better in the future and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: When I was speaking earlier, I said that if I found I had said anything that required to be corrected I would do so at the earliest opportunity. It has been suggested to me that, under Clause 50(3), the Secretary of State is not wholly deprived of all discretion because, for example, there might be circumstances in which the Assembly would resolve, perhaps late at night and when there was a very small attendance. Of course one would expect that the Assembly, acting under Standing Orders, would make provision to the effect that a resolution of such importance as one to remove the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General would require a certain notice and possibly a certain majority or quorum of the Assembly. I feel it right to draw the
398
attention of the Committee to that possibility.
Lord LYELL: I should like to ask one question about drafting on which I am sure the noble and learned Lord will be able to help me. At the foot of page 25, at line 41, the last three words in subsection (2) are "during good behaviour": do those three words mean what I think they mean—namely, while the Auditor General is performing the tasks that he ought to perform?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should not want to attempt an authoritative exposition of those words. I think they are fairly familiar words and I suppose that they introduce the whole notion of culpa, which is the concept which would be applied to the behaviour of people like judges. If I can offer any better explanation I will write to the noble Lord about it.
On Question, Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164, 165, 166 and 367 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Accounts Committee]:
5.8 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 27, line 21, at end insert ("of at least five members").
The noble Lord said: The equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee has already been referred to several times in the course of our debates this afternoon and Clause 54 provides for the appointment of the Scottish equivalent. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who said it was perhaps the most important thing, and I would not disagree with that. As the Bill stands, my understanding is that the Public Accounts Committee—which is the shorthand I shall use, if the Committee will forgive me—could in fact consist of one person, and that one person could be a Member of the Scottish Executive. That is not a very reasonable situation and this Amendment suggests that the Public Accounts Committee should consist of at least five people. Obviously, one can pull any number out of the air.
Having said that, I am slightly surprised to find the Bill having this clause in it at all, in view of the comments that were made frequently by the Government on Clauses 24 and 26, when the answer we were so often given was that they thought it right to leave the Assembly to make its own standing orders and to run its own affairs. Here we are saying not "may appoint an Accounts Committee" but "shall appoint an Accounts Committee". All we are really saying in this Amendment is that if we are going to have a clause saying that they shall have a Public Accounts Committee we had better go all the way and say that it must consist of a reasonable number of people; indeed, I think one ought to go further still, and say that it should have a reasonable political balance within it. So the purpose of this Amendment is either to persuade the Government to be explicit about how the Public Accounts Committee should be created or to take the clause out altogether and leave it to the Assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: In general the Bill, in Clause 26, leaves it to the Assembly to decide what committees to appoint and to make provision in standing orders as it sees fit as to their constitution and terms of reference. But quite exceptionally the Bill makes express provision for the Accounts Committee, to which not more than one Scottish Secretary or assistant may be appointed, and it places a duty on the Assembly to publish its reports. This is because the Government regard it as of primary constitutional importance to establish a strong Back-Bench watchdog on the model of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. They will work closely with the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, and this committee will be able to make the audit arrangements fully effective and to secure a proper accountability of the Executive to the Assembly. The effectiveness of the arrangements is of concern not only to the Scottish electorate; it also safeguards the interests of the United Kingdom taxpayer who has to finance the block fund under Clause 44.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to add to the status of the Accounts Committee, and the Government are sympathetic to that purpose behind the
400
Amendment. But I am advised that it is not quite as straightforward as it might appear. If we lay down a minimum size for the membership of the committee without making provision for a smaller number to form a quorum, then the minimum size might also be regarded as the quorum. The number five contained in the Amendment might be reasonable as a quorum but is, in the Government's view, too small for the whale committee to do the job that we expect it to do, having regard to the desirability of ensuring that there is, as the noble Lord suggested, a reasonable and balanced representation of Back-Bench opinion and interests, and the possibility that this Accounts Committee may wish to establish sub-committees dealing with particular fields. If, on the other hand, we were to require a minimum of, say, 10 or 12 members, that in itself would be too large for a quorum.
We could, no doubt, lay down a minimum size and a quorum, but if we did that I think we would find ourselves drawn gradually further into devising detailed rules of procedure for the committee in order to make our requirements fully effective, and that again would not do. We really must leave it to the Assembly to make their own sensible domestic arrangements of this kind. I have to say to the noble Lord that much as we sympathise with his objective I would hope that he would not press the Amendment. What I will do is consider it with the officials, to see whether there is any sensible way round the difficulties I have mentioned; but I must say that we have given a lot of thought to it and I do not hold out very much hope of being able to find a way. I am happy to take it back for further consideration.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her very clear exposition. She has cleared up one point that had arisen in my mind, particularly in respect to what the noble and learned Lord had to expound to me on the previous clause, Clause 53(2). If the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness would direct their attention to Clause 54(1), they will find that the Accounts Committee is going to perform two out of the three functions that the Auditor General is going to perform. The only thing the Accounts Committee are not going to do is to certify the accounts.

401
It seems to me that the functions which are going to be carried out by the Accounts Committee are very close to, if not in fact, a practical audit. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness explained this. In the course of her remarks earlier she explained that the Accounts Committee is going to consist of Back-Benchers who might need, I think she said, expert help. Would I be right in thinking that it is the Government's intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be allowed to provide this expert help and interpretation, which has been so well expressed and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw? I think the noble Baroness and I would agree that Back-Benchers would require assistance in interpreting something like the consolidated accounts, or indeed the normal commercial accounts.
Baroness STEDMAN: It will be up to the Accounts Committee to make their case to the Scottish Assembly that they need this extra outside help, and for the Assembly to decide whether or not to give it to them. They can ask for it and the Scottish Assembly can provide it for them.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I must thank the noble Baroness for being at least entirely sympathetic, even if she admits much of the same difficulty as we were labouring under when we drew up this Amendment. It occurs to me that we might be able to devise some form of words which would incorporate the concept of having a representative of each Party, provided there was a certain minimum number of representatives of that Party in the Assembly. But there is no reason to waste the time of the Committee any further this evening. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and perhaps we can get together and see whether we can think of something suitable to put in at Report stage. I think it is quite a serious point once we agree that we are going to put in anything at all about the Public Accounts Committee. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 368 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 337:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
Proposals for powers to raise moneys
("If the Assembly decides that it wishes to make proposals that power should be conferred on the Assembly to raise by taxation moneys to he paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund, they may communicate such proposals to the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: Last night, we discussed the question of the Assembly having taxing powers. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who moved an Amendment to that end. I rather think that their Amendment was designed with a particular purpose, which was to frighten the potential voters in Scotland by implying that if they had an elected Assembly they might face very much heavier taxes than would otherwise be the case. That is certainly not the purpose of my Amendment.
What was interesting in the debate on their Amendment was that there was general agreement, I think on all sides of the Committee, that the Assembly should have additional taxing powers if it could find a relatively harmless way of achieving this. So far as the Government are concerned, the very last paragraph of Cmnd. Paper 6890, says quite specifically that, if the devolved administrations wish to have available a limited supplementary tax power, and are ready to meet its administrative costs, the Government would certainly be willing sympathetically to consider any such proposals. I think I am right in saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, confirmed at some time during the evening that that was the Government's view.
The Amendment, as moved, did not go through, for reasons which I have already indicated. Then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had a shot at trying to find a relatively painless way of giving the Assembly some additional revenues.

403
He moved an Amendment about the holding of lotteries. Again, there was support for this idea from all sides of the House. I think it might well have been carried as an Amendment if it had been necessary, but it was pointed out by the Government that it was already inherent in the powers as laid down by the Bill. Therefore, that Amendment was withdrawn.
I come to the Amendment that I move today. Before I go into detail on it, I would make the point that, at present, as the Bill stands, the subordinate local authorities have a taxing power, whereas the Assembly, which is, after all, their master, has none. That is, if I may say so, an absurd situation. I felt it would be appropriate that there should be a permissive Amendment which would allow the Assembly, if it decided in its wisdom that it would like in one way or another to raise money additional to what comes from the block grant, to do so. In the Amendment, I go on to say—the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, who supports me, will perhaps elaborate on the point—that the proposals, if any, that are put forward by the Assembly, have to come before both Houses of Parliament. In other words, they must approve it.
Recalling all the expressions of last night's debate, including the willingness to accept something like this if a way could be found, I hope that the Government will feel that this Amendment is acceptable. My hope is, third time lucky. I beg to move.
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on this Amendment, which we both put down. Last night at a late hour and at some length we considered a long and somewhat involved Amendment aimed at giving the Assembly money-raising powers. This Amendment is shorter and has the benefit of simplicity. It would give to the Assembly the right, if it so desired, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, to raise money with certain safeguards. Without this power the Assembly could well become just another tier of local government. This is a form of government. Some think it might go further. However, if it is without the power to raise money
404
it could become a farce. It is right and proper that the Assembly and the Scottish nation should be able to raise money under certain safeguards. I beg to move.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I apologise to the Minister that I could not be here last night. I shall only repeat in shorthand the conviction that I expressed on the Second Reading of this Bill; that is, that unless the Scottish Assembly can raise some revenue of its own it will be ineffective. Therefore we must find away to help it raise revenue. The Government, in the Command Paper which my noble friend Lord Perth has just quoted, seemed to agree. But they say that they cannot find a tax which they can recommend. At some time I should like to know about some of the researches that have been made. If we look at the German experience and the kind of local taxes that are levied by the German Länder, for example, I find it difficult to believe that we should not find a tax which is both appropriate and adaptable to the kinds of conditions that we foresee in Scotland. That may have been done. If so, at some time I should like to know. For the moment, if we cannot find a particular tax, if the Government are unable to do so, and if there is nothing provided in the Bill, it seems to me that the Amendment moved by my noble friends is the best that we can do in the circumstances. I hope that the Government will, therefore, look upon it favourably.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The Government have indicated their attitude in the debates on this subject so far, including that of last night. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made it clear that they agreed with the sentiments in this Amendment; that is, that they would like the new Assembly to have tax-raising responsibilities, and that it should have the duty of raising some of the money it will spend. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel pointed out that the Assembly is likely to be ineffective if it does not have such powers. I would go further and say there is a danger that a body with no responsibility for taxation or rates might always be complaining that it was not receiving enough from Westminster. This would not conduce to the stability of the new system. Even local government councils in Scotland, as in England and Wales, have to raise revenue by rates,

405
which is their form of taxation. This places a financial responsibility firmly upon them. Those who elect them examine carefully how the money that they raise is spent.
What the Government have said so far by indicating their attitude—it was clear from the 1975 and 1977 White Papers—is that they cannot find the answer. They know there is a gap here, but they have not been able to find the appropriate form of tax which this new body would be able to raise. The Government have indeed gone further and invited suggestions from any quarter. My noble friends Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Morris, in their Amendment which we discussed yesterday evening, made an ingenious attempt to meet the requirements which the Government had outlined as a tax-raising power.
This Amendment would allow the new Assembly, if it came up with a possible scheme, at least to have it considered by Westminster. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lord Cromartie that that is a reasonable suggestion. I am afraid that it still does not provide the answer which the Government are seeking. It does not provide an answer for the Committee. It would mean that there was nothing in the Bill to fill this important gap. But at least it would he better than nothing. I am sure that it would be harmless from the Government's point of view. I see the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, wanting to intervene.
Lord VAIZEY: I had intended to speak.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I shall stop very soon, I am glad to tell the Committee. I need add only one small drafting point. The Amendment would need a little revision. I pointed this out to the noble Earl, but it does not seem to have been carried through into the Seventh Marshalled List. The Assembly is dealt with in the singular in the first three lines, but then suddenly becomes plural later on. That is not happy drafting of a provision that will go into a Statute. However, that is a minor point. If the proposed words are not acceptable as they stand simply because of that defect, I am sure that other words which carry out the purpose may be found quite easily. I
406
hope that the Government will view this Amendment sympathetically.
Viscount THURSO: Anyone who wishes well to the Assembly or to devolution for Scotland must realise that ultimately the Assembly must be able to raise revenue and spend revenue or it will never truly be even as important as a regional authority or a district local authority. Obviously at this time when we are establishing the Assembly there is a natural reluctance to impose upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer who is, after all, the same person, further imposts that he has to pay for further expense. However, as we have been discussing the shape which the Assembly will take, the jobs which it will do and the future shape of government within Scotland, it has been made clear on various sides that it is hoped that the Assembly will trim, slim and make more effective local government within Scotland. If it succeeds in doing that, it will create savings of moneys which the taxpayer-ratepayer has to pay in order to have services carried out. Within that sphere in the future there will surely he areas where money can be raised.
It is only right that we should make it clear now when we are setting up the Assembly that we must recognise that in future the Assembly must have powers to raise money by some method and that we expect it, by savings which it will make in the way in which it organises local government and other administration within Scotland, to be able to justify the raising of funds for the extension of services within Scotland, and therefore the right ultimately to raise revenue by some form of taxation.
Lord VAIZEY: I am sorry that I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, move on the Front Bench and thought that she was about to make a quick reply before the debate continued. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has made a very important point, although it is somewhat paradoxical that a measure designed to slim down the government of Scotland and democratise it should set out to create 1,000 extra civil servants in order to get that slimming down and democracy going. I am thinking of the figure to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell referred in his speech.

407
I should like to ask two questions of the Front Bench. The first concerns precisely the point which the noble Viscount has raised. Let us suppose that in considering the future of the government of Scotland and the future of the regional councils of Scotland, the Assembly decides that large parts of the functions of the regional authorities could properly be brought to itself—in other words, the Assemblymen could do it better. I should think that, if, for example, regional government came about in England and we had some kind of council for East Anglia, it may well be that the council for East Anglia would take to itself the powers which are now exercised by the county councils of Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. So, it is a perfectly reasonable and possible prospect and, after all, there are only 5 million Scots.
If such a decision were taken—and as I read the Bill it is within the powers of the Assembly to make that decision—will it carry with it the power to finance itself by the surcharge on the rates which is a power which the regional councils have at present? That is the first question. If the power is not in the Bill, then I should have thought that it was important that at some later stage it should be inserted.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the broader question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and which, of course, refers to the extended debate we had last night. Indeed, I thought that it was a most important and interesting debate. Personally I was very much persuaded by the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the difficulties of raising additional taxation in Scotland, although I must say that it came somewhat paradoxically from a member of a Party whose National Executive and the TUC are in favour of higher public expenditure and presumably must therefore be in favour of higher taxation at some stage. However, he asked a serious and important question; namely, which taxes would the Scots wish to see increased? He pointed out that there were only two or three major taxes—for example, income tax. We are not allowed to raise value added tax because of the rules of the Common
408
Market. Therefore, the number of taxes which could be affected is comparatively small.
I thought about this question for a long time. I think that I have consulted every distinguished public finance expert in Scotland who has also thought about it. I must confess that a change of this kind would require such a radical alteration to the Bill that we should require, in fact, a completely new Bill. If we had a completely new Bill which gave adequate tax powers to Scotland, it could only be done by hypothecating the yield of some of the major United Kingdom taxes; that is, it could be done by giving to the Scottish Assembly the power to levy major taxes, not just the power to add a penny on the income tax, but to take, for example, the greater part of the income tax. That is very important because in a Federal State the traditional way in which the federal Government finance themselves is by Customs and Excise duties while the income taxes and so on are levied at a lower level, For example, the States in Australia used to exercise this power and also the States of the United States. The Common Market is financed through a customs levy.
However, that particular avenue is closed to the United Kingdom by our Accession to the Treaty of Rome. I conclude, therefore, that if we really were serious in wishing to give taxation powers to the Assembly—and I argued several times last night in favour of giving taxation powers to the Assembly if we possibly could—we would have to follow the line of reasoning which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has advanced several times in the course of these debates. In other words we would have to go much more deeply into the Constitution of the United Kingdom and set about wholehearted federalism which, of course, is something which was recommended by a substantial number of people who sat on the Royal Commission on the Constitution; namely, the Kilbrandon Commission, whose report is the basis for large parts of the Bill.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: wonder whether we have accepted a little too easily that some local taxes would run counter to the European regulations.

409
If, for example, one looks at the German Ländes system there are quite a lot of local taxes which cannot, by definition, of course, run counter to the EEC rules. I wonder whether that has been examined as it should have been?
Lord VAIZEY: I fully concede the points which the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has made. Personally, I thought, and I said yesterday, that the paper which was produced by the Government as a basis for discussion—I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a member of the Government that introduced that paper —and which asked rather rhetorically what taxes could be raised, did not really ask the question hard enough. To be candid I think that the question was asked in a form which expected the answer, No. Therefore, I was not very impressed with that particular State paper. Nevertheless, I was fairly persuaded by the argument which the Government produced last night in this series of rather interesting debates that it would require a major shift in the basic Constitution of the United Kingdom. The only answer then would be to withdraw this Bill—and the Bill may be withdrawn if it is defeated by the referendum—and then to come back with a completely different Bill.
I should like to say a word about the clauses which relate to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I cannot, for the life of me, see why, if the Bill gives to Edinburgh powers which are now exercised by Westminster, 1,000 extra men and women must be hired to supervise the transfer of some powers which are perfectly well being exercised already, so far as we know, by the 71 Scottish MPs down the passage in the Scottish Grand Committee. That is why—in the argument about the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor-General—I was asking myself, "Who is stealing the money now? What evidence have we that the accounts are not properly kept as present? Why do we need extra accountants and extra experts?", and so on. This whole question of where the money will come from to pay these extra people, and of the extra functions which the Assembly might arrogate to itself, goes right to the heart of this particular form of devolution which has been chosen by the Government.
5.40 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: This Amendment puts me in a great deal of difficulty. At the very outset I made it plain to my noble friends that there were two aspects of the Bill about which I was unhappy. One was the method of election, and I had an opportunity to express my view on that by voting for the Amendments which were moved by, among others, the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The other was finance. I cannot believe that at the end of the day an Assembly can be a perfectly satisfactory body if it does not have some control over finance.
One possibility that I saw was that the Assembly may, quite properly, legislate within the powers which are devolved to it; it would not seek to go out of its way to be awkward, but it would do what it believes to be a proper job and would be accepted to be doing a proper job. Yet, when it reaches the end of the financial year it may find that its legislation is costing more than has been allocated to it from Westminster. In that situation either one of two things must happen. Either Westminster will make more money available, or Westminster will say that the Assembly must cut its coat according to the cloth. Either way is unacceptable to one side or the other.
The remedy is obviously one which is not capable of being included in this Bill. I entirely agree with what my noble and learned friend said last night and with what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has repeated today. It would, in fact, mean a major reconstruction of the financial sections of the Bill, which is obviously quite impossible for anyone, other than a skilled draftsman, to attempt. It would mean so many Amendments throughout the Bill that it is beyond the possibility of amendment in your Lordships' Committee.
However, having accepted—if the Assembly is to be completely successful —that there should be the possibility of a tax-raising power in the Assembly, I cannot bring myself to accept the situation which this Amendment would create, which is that the Assembly's taxing powers are limited to having taxation at the same level as applies in England and Wales.(and remember, it has to accept all the taxation levels imposed by the United

411
Kingdom Government); or having all that taxation plus something else.
A satisfactory taxation policy for the Assembly ought to envisage the possibility that taxation in Scotland should be lower than it is in England. This Amendment only affords the possibility of making it higher. I am quite certain that that would not be a popular prospect in Scotland at any time, and certainly not at the present time. As it is impossible within the Bill to make provision for taxation being lower than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, I cannot bring myself to support an Amendment which would create the possibility of the imposition in Scotland of taxation at higher levels.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As several noble Lords have said, we had a debate on this matter last night. In fact, we had a very full debate which lasted about an hour; having regard to the conciseness with which noble Lords are able to put their points, in our terms, within the context of this Bill, that is rather a long debate. There were some 10 or 11 speakers and all the points were covered. I think that it would be impertinent of me to make the same or a similar speech today as I made last night, although, of course, what I said last night is not yet available in print to your Lordships because of the lateness of the hour at which I spoke.
However, a number of points have been raised today to which I should reply. First, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, asked me specifically whether we have looked at other systems. Indeed we have. We have looked very carefully at the systems obtaining in the United States, in Canada, in Italy, in Sweden and in Germany. As I think the noble Lord may know, in Germany the position is that the Federal Government raises the taxes and there is a distribution of some portion of them to the Ländes in accordance with an agreement which obtains between the Federation and the individual States. Therefore, we have made very careful examinations.
I was, in fact, a member of the Government when these papers were drawn up. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, seems to think that I entered the Government only when I entered this House. In fact, I
412
entered the Government in March 1974. I can assure the noble Lord that this matter was before those Ministers who had to consider the Assembly Bill from a very early date and they have been deeply concerned. Indeed, at an early stage when they received the kind of answer which I offered to the Committee last night several Ministers, including myself, said that it would not do and that we must have a better answer than that. I am now satisfied that, for the reasons which are given with great clarity in the White Paper, Devolution—Financing the Devolved Services, there is currently no better answer available than the one I gave last night. We do not rule out the possibility of some suitable tax-raising power, but I want to draw a distinction, which I sought to draw last night and it is right to remind the Committee of it.
One side of the coin is that the Assembly can be given the power to raise all the taxes which are necessary to finance all the services over which it has control. That is a revenue-based system for financing the devolved services in Scotland. That system is rejected by the Government, for reasons which appealed also to the Royal Commission, sitting under Lord Kilbrandon, and for reasons which were set out in the White Paper in November 1975 and in the later White Paper to which I have referred.
The other side of the coin is the side which I believe most other noble Lords who have spoken would support, and that is a supplementary tax-raising power. However, that has the serious defect to which my noble friend Lord Hughes has just drawn attention; namely, that it is a very unattractive prospect to say, "You have the power to raise taxes but no power to diminish them"; because ultimately the Scots are saying "Why should we pay up to, say, 14 per cent. extra on the income tax"—which was the figure which I calculated for the benefit of the Committee last night—"when the ultimate result will only be to reduce the amount of the block grant?"
Therefore, although there is a conundrum here, it is one that will not be solved as easily as the movers of this Amendment seem to suppose. This Amendment suffers from the same weakness as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when he addressed

413
himself to it last night. It is that it makes an assumption that there is lying somewhere—perhaps in the back of a cupboard or in the back of someone's mind—a tax which fits all the requirements and all that is required is that men of goodwill go into the cupboard or look in the backs of their minds and come forward with such a tax. We are satisfied that at the moment no such tax exists. It may well be that if the whole system of rating is reconsidered and changed and some form of local income tax introduced, that may be a candidate on to which the Scottish Assembly might wish to fasten. But I believe—and I said this in other terms last night—that it would be idle to include in the Bill a provision which makes an assumption which is not warranted by the facts.
I do not want to go into these matters again in terms that I used last night, so perhaps I could turn again to the specific questions that I have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, asked me whether there is a power to surcharge the rates. Noble Lords will recall that in the White Paper of November 1975 the Government proposed that. Although there were other criticisms of the White Paper, that was perhaps the one that was most anguished. The Government decided not to do that. If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Bill he will see that there is no such power.
Lord VAIZEY: I did not ask quite that question, I was fully aware of what the noble and learned Lord has just said; I asked a different question. If the Assembly dissolves the regional councils of Scotland and arrogates to itself the powers to be the Regional Council for Scotland, could it then have the taxing powers which are at present given to the Regional Council? With great respect, that is not the same point as the noble and learned Lord has answered.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I believe that the answer to that question is the same, and it resides in the same part of the Bill. Perhaps I should refer to it. I am looking at Schedule 2, paragraph 4, on page 42, which makes it clear in sub-paragraph (1):
"A provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it would impose, alter or abolish any tax".
414
That is the tax point at the moment. Sub-paragraph (2):
"This paragraph does not prevent a provision from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly if its effect is only—
(a) to alter a rate levied at the passing of this Act without substantially changing its character".
I draw attention to those words, "without substantially changing its character". The character of a local rate is that it is local, and if it becomes a rate that applies throughout Scotland that would appear to be an alteration in its character. Therefore, I would rest upon the wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 and answer the noble Lord in that way.
Some mention has been made of withdrawing the Bill and trying to rewrite the provisions. The Government have no intention of doing that. The Government do not believe that by withdrawing the Bill and going hack to look at these financial provisions they can solve this problem in a way that they have rot found before now. No solution has been found to this problem. That is regrettable, but it is believed that in the light of how the Assembly works it may be possible, in the light of developments such as I have mentioned, to look at this matter again in consultation with the Assembly, and the Bill does not exclude that possibility.
At the end of the day, when one introduces legislation which is going to affect rates of tax on this level, surely that must be done through the Westminster Parliament and done by proper consultation and not, as this Amendment would suggest, by the Assembly making a proposal which the Secretary of State is bound then to lay before both Houses of Parliament, because that is the wording:
"the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament".
I hope that that, in addition to what I said at a late hour last night. would satisfy the Committee, and I would invite the noble Earl not to press this Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Can the noble and learned Lord clear up something in my mind for me? When this Assembly comes into being, will it have the power to create a local authority in a single tier? If it does, then what happens to the district rates? I can quite conceive that

415
I am probably in a muddle, but I hope the noble and learned Lord will get me out of it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I can get myself out of it in this way: we are going to discuss the reform of local government in relation to a later Amendment. I think that the Committee would accept that it would be more appropriate to address ourselves to the question then, and perhaps be easier to give an accurate answer if we postponed it to that particular time.
5.53 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: First of all, I thank all those who have supported the Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Cromartie and myself. Secondly, if we decide to press the Amendment, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the drafting error, which I thought had been corrected and has not, will be corrected at Report stage. I shall not take much of your Lordships' time. The fact remains that at the present time in this Bill there is no power for the Assembly to make suggestions on how it would like to raise taxes. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, "It is no good because it is just a tax to raise and not to lower". Surely if the Assembly decided, in their wisdom, that they wanted to take over some of the powers of the local authorities, and in doing that they created a considerable economy, then it would be open to them at that time to say, "Well, the economies we have made for that purpose, perhaps in a slightly different form we will use for other purposes". So I think at the present time there is the inherent possibility of lowering as well as increasing.
Lord HUGHES: Would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? I should say that it would not be a prospect which would be pleasing to the people of Scotland that the Assembly should be taking

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Chesham, L.

De La Warr, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cockfield, L.

Drogheda, E.

Balerno, L,

Coleraine, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elles, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B

Carr of Hadley, L.

Cromartie, E. [Teller.]

Exeter, M.

Carrington, L.

de Clifford, L.

Falkland, V.

over some of the local authority powers. The criticism of the existing local government structure that is made is not at district level; it is at regional level. The criticism is that local government has become too remote. If a change is to be made by the Assembly, I am quite certain that it is much more likely to be on the basis of conferring all local powers on a unitary type of authority. Therefore, there is not the slightest prospect of the Assembly taking over local government powers and then seeking to finance these by something other than rates. If I thought that there was the slightest possibility of an Assembly going in that direction, which I would consider to be a most retrograde step, I should be tempted even at this late stage to vote against the Bill.
The Earl of PERTH: I think that the noble Lord misunderstood me. What I had in mind was that in any re-formation of local government the regions might disappear, and that that could create certain savings. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, this is a matter which is going to be debated later today, and therefore we shall not go into that at this time.
I remain unhappy that there is no mention in the Bill of the Assembly having powers at any time, even with the approval of Parliament, for taxation. As I understand it, the answer given by the Government at the present time is, "Because we have not been able to think of a tax, therefore there cannot be one. But at a later date we could look at it again." I do not feel that that is good enough. I feel that I would wish to press the Amendment, and I hope that I shall have full support in my endeavours.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 337) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Content, 77; Non-Contents, 76.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Spens, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stamp, L.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Haig, E.

Northchurch, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Terrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Perth, E. [Teller]

Tranmire, L.

Kinross, L.

Phillips, B.

Trenchard, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Vaizey, L.

Loudoun, C.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vernon, L.

Lyell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Vickers, B.

McFadzean, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Romney, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mansfield, E.

Sandford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Meston, L.

Sandys, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northfield, L.

Atholl, D.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Hall, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brimelow, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kagan, L.

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lockwood, B.

Torphichen, L.

Dowding, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Dulverton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Monson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Resolved in the affimative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 59 [Devolved matters]:
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 370:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert ("a").
The noble Earl said: We are now entering the area of the Bill which deals with the division between matters which are devolved and those which are not. It is probably far and away the most difficult part of the Bill to understand and I have tabled the Amendment to try to get some picture of what is in the Government's mind, in the hope that we can make this provision clearer.
There are at least three ways in which one can divide powers by devolution. The first is to state that certain subjects will be retained by the Westminster Government and the rest will be devolved. The second is to do it the other way round and devolve certain subjects and say the rest will remain with the Westminster Government. Those are the easier ways of doing it, but the Government have chosen the third way: they have tried to define both the subjects to be devolved and the subjects to be reserved. That is the most difficult way of doing it and, while they may have good reason for doing it that way, it makes the position very difficult to understand. Indeed, two noble and learned Lords who belong to the Judicial Committee have said that they regard this as among the most difficult drafting they have seen. I tried last night

419
to obtain an explanation regarding the Scottish Development Agency in Part III of Schedule 10, but I was immediately referred hack to Part I; I was, so to speak, going round the mulberry bush. Certainly I find it most difficult.
There are two forms of devolution here. One is statutory devolution, which comes in Schedule 10, and the other, in Schedule 11, is purely Executive devolution, and the two are quite separate. I am seeking by the Amendment primarily to discover whether it is really necessary to have Part III of Schedule 10 at all because it increases enormously the difficulty of understanding the provision. The Minister described it as "fine tuning", but it is so fine that nobody, even with a microscope, can understand what it means. It is exceedingly difficult.
What does it mean if a measure is not referred to in Part 111 of the Schedule? Does it mean that it is reserved? And why are some Bills in and some not in? The Schedule refers to "matters". If it is a matter which is covered by a Bill which is not included, does that of itself prevent the Assembly from legislating on that subject, or does it only mean that the structure of the Bill itself cannot be amended ? It is important to know whether the measure is sacred in itself or whether a similar subject or subject matter under the same heading may be dealt with. After all, these Statutes are going to be amended; they are not permanent, and many other subjects may be raised.
There are a number of matters which are extremely difficult to understand. Let us take, for example, town and country planning. Why is that not completely included? Obviously, this is a matter with which the Assembly will have to deal. In so far as the Secretary of State wants to keep powers they are all perfectly preserved under Schedule 14. That provides for his powers to be retained. I cannot see why the whole of the remainder of town and country planning is not a devolved subject. The same applies to local government. We have been talking about local government, and we will be talking about it again later. Why is the whole of that subject net devolved? I should have thought that that is a matter which would be the clear responsibility of the Assembly.
I should like to take a third example, that of the Scottish Development Agency. I find it very difficult to believe that the Westminster Government want the Scottish Development Agency to be amended by the Assembly; but it can be in certain particulars, though, frankly, I do not quite see how this is done. The Assembly would be given certain powers, and I should have thought that those powers should be transferred to Schedule 11.
I do not intend to ask the noble Lord to answer my questions in detail. I do not want detailed answers, but rather, so far as possible, a picture of what is intended by these very detailed clauses. The difficulty of distinguishing where the responsibility lies will be enormously complicated. Are the clauses subject, in Part III, to Part I, or is Part I subject to Part III? I know that this is a very complicated matter, and I am grateful for the assistance the noble and learned Lord has given me, but I hope that at a later stage these matters can be elucidated a little further.
This is a Bill which must be understood net only by distinguished lawyers but the people in the street, and by the members of the Assembly. As it stands at present, it is frightfully difficult to understand, and people will not know where the responsibility lies. I tried to bring this point out in my Second Reading speech. It is the essence of democracy that we know where responsibility lies, that we know whom we can hold responsible for failures of Government.
I do not wish to argue this matter. I ask only that the noble and learned Lord tells us a little more of what is the intention, and says whether the matter can be simplified. Frankly, I should have thought that, in view of the powers which the Government hold—I have forgotten at the moment under which clauses—it is unnecessary to have these detailed matters. Perhaps some of the matters can be transferred to Schedule 11, and the remainder can be covered by the overriding powers which remain with the Westminster Parliament. That would greatly simplify the Bill. Such a move may mean some slight amendment elsewhere, but then the position would be less

421
formidable and less intimidating for those who would have to read the Bill in future. I beg to move.
6.13 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has made his concern about these matters plain from the beginning. As he has acknowledged, I offered him last night—and I think he received today—a copy of the substantial, and somewhat indigestible, script which I might have read out as being a critique of his Amendment. However, I do not think the Committee wants me to spend a long time reading out what is a highly technical defence of these provisions and a criticism of the Amendment. At the risk of falling flat on my face, I shall take the opportunity to try to explain why the matter is put in the way it is in Schedule 10 and, if I can, what Schedule 10 achieves.
First, it is important to answer the noble Earl's question as to whether this proposal is necessary at all; whether the complication which is demonstrable from Part HI of Schedule 10 is necessary? The first point I seek to make is that there is a compelling administrative necessity for Part III of Schedule 10. Those of your Lordships who have studied the Bill, or have a copy before you, will know that Part III is the part which refers to a vast number of enactments—commonly particular sections of particular Acts. Many detailed functions and responsibilities are set out in existing Statutes, and these Statutes—many of them referred to here—were not drafted in the knowledge that there would be devolution. No doubt had that been known, they would have been drafted differently. In coming to the matter, we have had to accept the Statute Book as it is.
It is important that those who are called upon to exercise the powers contained in existing Statutes should know with as much precision and certainty as possible, to whom they are responsible, and what their powers are: in other words, are the powers devolved or not? That is particularly true in the case where there is some financial responsibility. So we are not starting, as in some Colonial or Commonwealth cases, with a relatively clean, uncomplicated sheet. We are starting with a highly complex jungle of statutory provisions, which already interlock.
422
I looked this morning at the Renton Committee Report (Cmnd. 6053), with which some Members of the Committee will be familiar. I should like to refer to two passages of the report which will illustrate the truth of what I am saying about the complexity of the existing statutory provisions. On page 5 it is stated that,
"During the seven centuries since the enactment of the earliest statute (1235)"—
that is a reference to England, incidentally—
"recorded in Statutes of the Realm, many thousands of statutes (i.e., public as distinct from private Acts) have been enacted; despite repeals and consolidation, 3,480 ' public general Acts of Parliament ' were still in force in whole or in part at the beginning of 1974".
On page 35 it is stated that,
"A prodigious mass of statute law is enacted each year by Parliament".
Reference is then given to the number of pages added to the Statute Book in each decade, and the figures show that in 1965 the "live" Statute Book (that is, the Statute Book in force) then consisted of 33,000 pages of current law, parts of it dating back 700 years.
There is a well-known story of an Irishman being asked, "How do you get to Wexford from here? "He replies, "Well, I wouldn't start from here."However, we have to start from where we are. That is where we start from. We come to that situation, and we then have to endeavour to make clear for administrative purposes—and they are essential administrative purposes—what is devolved and what is not devolved. Without Part III, I do not believe that we can achieve the position which is administratively essential.
I now want to look at Schedule 10, and I will try to put the matter as briefly as I properly can. I have already addressed the Committee on this matter at some length at at earlier stage. The essential point is this: What is devolved under the Bill is "matters". The clause upon which everything hangs is Clause 59. If your Lordships look at Clause 59, you will see that it has two subsections which are relevant here. The first is subsection (2), which is on page 29. It reads:
"In relation to the legislative competence of the Assembly, a devolved matter is one which is included in the Groups in Part I of Schedule 10 to this Act".

423
As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made clear, we are talking here about what the Assembly can legislate on. So we see that a devolved matter is one which is included in the groups in Part I.
Subsection (3) is also relevant because a Scottish Secretary has powers and duties in relation to a devolved matter, but in that context a devolved matter is, according to the subsection,
"(a) any matter included in the Groups in Part I of Schedule 10".
So, in other words, he has responsibilities in relation to the same matters which are devolved for legislative purposes. The subsection also states, in paragraph (b), that a devolved matter is,
"any matter with respect to which powers within the Groups in Schedule 11 to this Act are exercisable…".
Paragraph (c) of the subsection contains a further provision which does not concern us here.
Schedule 10 then defines and specifies the matters which are devolved for both the purposes of legislation by the Assembly and actions by the Scottish Secretaries. Therefore the definition of a devolved matter is contained in Schedule 10. May I invite your Lordships' attention to that at the foot of page 47. There are three concepts involved here: There is first of all the concept of a group; secondly, the concept of a matter; and thirdly the concept of a subject. The groups which can be seen on pages 48, 49, and 50 are purely for convenience purposes. There is no technical significance about the fact that a subject is listed under one group or under another. Obviously there are possibilities for redistributing subjects among the various groups.
What is essential are the concepts of subject and of matter. I invite your Lordships' attention to page 47, line 31 of which reads:
"Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) below, a matter is included in the Groups in this Part of the Schedule if, and only if, it falls within the subjects listed in them".
So we start off with subjects, and the subjects embrace matters, and it is the matters which are devolved. Paragraph (a) reads:
"the matters specified in Part II of this Schedule are not included in those groups".
In other words, this is the derogation from the devolution that would appear on the face of Part I.
424
Then we come to the clue to the meaning of Part III, where enactments are set out:
"any question whether, or how far, the matters dealt with in the enactments listed in the first column of Part III of this Schedule are included in those Groups is to be determined in accordance with the second column of that Part".
These words in (b) are important and they relate to the words in line 31,
"Subject to paragraph (b) below"
and the word "but" in line 33. Over the page, we find these groups which have no technical significance, and listed under the groups are a number of subjects. If a matter falls properly within one of these subjects, it is a devolved matter.
When one comes to Part II, which appears on page 50 and subsequent pages, one finds that certain matters are subtracted from Part I. For example, although health is the description of a group, and there are certain subjects listed under that group, descriptions are mentioned—for example, "Prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease or illness"—one finds that, although the matters properly falling under that head are included in the groups and are therefore devolved matters, paragraph I of Part H on page 50 makes it clear that,
"Control of drugs, medicinal products, biological substances and food"
are not devolved matters. I do not want to take up a lot of time with other illustrations, but it would be possible to do so in relation to different subjects and groups.
We come to Part III, to which I referred on a previous occasion by saying that it did the fine tuning. Part III, which appears first on page 53, indicates that a number of these 3,800 statutes which we find on the Statute Book are listed on the left-hand side, and there is a general heading:
"Whether, or how far, matters dealt with are included in the Groups".
Those words derive their strength from the preliminary part of Part I. One finds particular statutes which have a bearing on subjects which constitute the groups and therefore upon devolved matters, and the right-hand column endeavours to make clear precisely what is or is not included in the groups and is therefore among the devolved matters.
The noble Earl asked a specific question: is it really necessary to have Part III?

425
Something of this kind is really necessary because, without having something of the character of Part III, the boundaries between what is and what is not devolved cannot be drawn with sufficient precision to make it clear to those who have to decide which side of the boundary their responsibility lies.
I was also asked: supposing a Bill or part of a Bill is not referred to, is it reserved or not? Again, the clue to that matter is the concept of a devolved matter. If a particular statute or enactment is referred to, what is the matter contained in the enactment? Is it included in the groups or not? That can be found from reading the right-hand column in Schedule 10 Part III. Another question was: can a Bill be legislated upon if it is not included? Of course the legislative competence of the Assembly depends upon whether or not the matter is devolved. If an enactment is not mentioned in Part HI, then one can forget about the enactment. The question is whether the matter is devolved. If the matter is devolved it can be legislated upon, and the Act of Parliament can be repealed. If the enactment is referred to in Part III it will be found in the right-hand column. If the whole enactment appears there with the words "not included", then plainly the subject matter of that Bill is outwith legislative competence and one could not repeal the Act because it would not be within legislative competence. That is a very complicated explanation. I hope it is correct. It is as simple as I can make it without distortion and I hope that the noble Earl will feel it has taken him some way along the road in answer to his question.
Lord MOTTISTONE: The noble and learned Lord has helped us greatly, but, observing the beginning of Schedule 10, which reads,
"if, and only if, [a matter] falls within the subjects listed in [the groups]"
and the fact that, in the Bill itself, it says that the groups include the devolved matters, it seems surprising that it is necessary to have Part II. If the devolved matters are only those referred to in Part I, everything else would seem to be excluded.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If you consider Part I and take the example that I gave a
426
moment ago of "prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease or illness", that would, unless there was some qualification of that, almost certainly carry to the Assembly legislative competence in relation to medicinal products. If the policy decision is not to give the Assembly such legislative competence, we have to find a way to derogate from that devolution. May I give another example which makes the point equally clear. Take Group 22: among the matters involved are,
"Courts, including juries. Court jurisdiction and procedure".
The derogations from that appear on page 51 and over the page we find that,
"Judges of the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session, the Chairman and members of the Scottish Land Court, sheriffs principal, temporary sheriffs principal, sheriffs and temporary sheriffs"
are excluded from Group 22 by paragraph 15 of Part II of Schedule 10. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is acknowledging that I have answered that question, but perhaps it is right, seeing that he has drawn attention to the words "if, and only if" appearing in line 32 on page 47, I should again draw attention to the words which precede it; namely,
"Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) below, a matter is included in the Groups …if, and only if, it falls within the subjects listed in them; but—…".
The word "but" is important, and the phrase preceded by the word "Subject" is also very important.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I ask another question, please, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me? These two lists cannot be comprehensive of all matters that the Scots will want to do. If there is a subject which is not comprehended by either Part I or Part II, can it be assumed that that is devolved, or not?
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I had stuck to my notes I would have answered that question, but I will do so now. The important matter to note is that if a matter is not included in Part I of Schedule 10 it is not a devolved matter. In other words, there is reservation by silence. For example, you will find no mention of nuclear weapons in this Bill, so you may assume that they are not devolved. Defence is not devolved and foreign policy is not devolved. One does not

427
have to specify. It can be done, of course: one can list devolved matters and one can list reserved matters, but that is not the policy of the Bill. Within the context of various clauses the notion of a reserved matter is used for a limited purpose. One finds that, for example, in Clauses 35, 36 and 37.
6.32 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to ask to have on the record a question which I have already put to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and to which, in correspondence, I have had a reply. As my noble and learned friend knows, I am involved in another look at things legal in which the question of jurisdiction on divorce matters will inevitably come up. One of the points which are regularly being put forward is the possibility of divorce being dealt with in the sheriff court. The Part II to which my noble and learned friend referred has, in the matters not included—I am referring now to paragraph 16(c) at the bottom of page 51—the jurisdiction of the Court of Session over "any question of status, right or obligation"; I will not read on.
The answer, as I have been given it, is that within that it will be impossible to take divorce away from the Court of Session and give it to the sheriff court, but it would be possible to add to the jurisdiction of the sheriff court by making it possible for divorce to be dealt with. So the Assembly, by legislation, could create concurrent power, but it could not take away the power from one court and transfer it to another, though it could add it. Am I putting the matter correctly? Is this the position which the Bill makes possible?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall shortly answer that either "Yes" or "No", but let me work towards the answer. The courts are devolved. W'e see that in the group to which I have referred in Part I. My noble friend has referred to paragraph 16(c), but, of course, that is qualified by words over the page, in lines 4, 5 and 6 on page 52, where the wording is as follows:
"The matters above do not extend to the continued existence of the privative nature of any jurisdiction…".
428
The significance of those words is that at the moment the Court of Session has exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning status. That is a privitive jurisdiction; it excludes the jurisdiction of other courts. These words have the effect that the privitive jurisdiction of the Court of Session is not protected. In other words, as my noble friend suggested, the answer is, Yes, the Assembly can legislate to allow divorce in the sheriff court, but they cannot take away from the Court of Session the right to entertain actions concerning status, including actions of divorce.
Lord HUGHES: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that answer.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make a point which is perhaps important for the understanding of the Bill by people who are interested in reading it? If one looks at the groups, one finds that up to Group 7 the numbers of the groups exactly correspond with the matters not included in the groups in Part II. After that, apparently, that system broke down; they could not go on with that very easily, because they wanted to keep the numbers running straight through. Would it not have been easier, and could it not still be done, to have had the matters not included in the groups numbered in accordance with the groups? And, if there is nothing which is not included in the groups, then there will be no similar reference in Part II. I hope the noble and learned Lord sees what I mean.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, I do.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should have thought it was possible to follow this right through with the groups and then to add at the end those matters which are referred to in Part II which are not included in the groups at all. Could that be considered?
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is not really possible. There is no planned correspondence between the groups in Part I and the paragraphs in Part II. I agree with the noble Lord that it would appear, if you look at it, that paragraph 1 of Part II is related to Group 1 in part I, but it is not necessarily so. For example, if you take the first item in paragraph 1 of Part II on page 50 it is the control of drugs.

429
That is excluded, but it is not excluded only from Group 1, which relates to health; it is also excluded from Group 26, which relates to crime. One can do that many times over; but, really, what it comes to is this, that each of the matters specified in Part II of the Schedule is taken out of devolution, no matter under what head you might get it in under Part I. There are various things that could come under different groups in Part I because of the construction of this, and they have got to be excluded. For example, if you simply relate paragraph 1 to Group 1, you suddenly find that it is not excluded from devolution under Group 26. So it does not work the way that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested. En other words, it cannot be done.
Lord BURTON: May I thank the noble Lord for that excellent description? This is a problem which I tried to get answered last week and again yesterday, when we were referring to the Highlands Development Board. He has to a large extent answered it, but there is still a little complication because, though it was clearly pointed out that the Highlands Development Board was devolved, it plainly says on page 58 that the Act setting up the Highlands Development Board is not included. This really does cause enormous confusion. Would it be possible, in Part III of the Bill, to specify which Acts are included? I think that would clear the situation a great deal. They have put in all the Acts which are only part included and some of the ones which are not included, and if we actually specified the ones which were included it might help.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was not here when that was said, although I am sure I was here when the noble Lord thought it was said, because I do not think it was said that the Highlands and Islands Development Board was devolved. What is devolved is matters. Of course, where there are existing agencies, whether it is the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board or the like, there are provisions in the Bill about giving directions or guidelines, and that kind of thing, but you do not devolve the Highlands and Islands Development Board; you devolve matters. I am talking at the moment about Schedule 10.
6.40 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: I hesitate as a layman to plunge into this legal thicket, but I feel bound to add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. One of the leading industrial companies in Britain with which I have a connection has taken this Bill extremely seriously and has set up a working party, including its leading corporate legal staff, to go into the implications of it for the company. They had a number of specific minor points, but the main point made by them here—and this, as I say, included people well-versed in corporate industrial law—was the question of the complexity and confusion of the layout of the Schedules.
To quote only some of the points: the Act in Schedule 10 lists chronologically rather than by subject—salmon fisheries, anatomy, and goodness knows what—all following on without any logical sequence. Surely some way could be found of grouping them by subject. They are copiously laced with double negatives. For example, page 61, line 4, says:
"The Development of Tourism Act 1969.…Not included, except that the matters dealt with otherwise than in …section 1(2); sections 7 to 16;… Schedule 1… are included".
And they point out that both Schedule 10 and Schedule 11 have beers laid out in such a way as to require an excessive amount of work to discover their effects. We have created a jungle through which the layman—and in this case, the lawyer—will have great difficulty in blazing his trail. They point out that a reader wanting to study in detail the effects of the Bill on the problems of road transport will have to go through at least six separate stages moving from Schedule to Schedule and to other Acts and back again; and they wonder whether there is not some possibe solution to simplifying this. Not being a lawyer, I do not know whether this is feasible. They suggest that it might be possible to combine Schedule 10, Part I with Part 11 so that the exclusions and limitations could be seen, looking at them together. They wonder whether Schedule 10, Part III and Schedule 1I could be combined in tabular form, listed by subject matter showing which sections are reserved, which devolved to the Assembly and which to the Executive only.
I do not know whether that is possible. It would be longer, undoubtedly, but I think that the main point is this: These

431
provisions are for the benefit of the ordinary people of Scotland and those who do their business there. Even if it is impossible—and I admired the noble and learned Lord's explanation of why it was impossible, even if I did not understand it all—could the Government undertake, in the event of this Bill being enacted, that the Government will publish some vade mecum as to the combined effects of these Schedules on devolved matters so that they may be more easily comprehended than is the case with many of your Lordships today.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to add one word on much the same lines as my noble friend Lord Polwarth. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord very much on the extraordinarily skilful manner in which he tried to decipher some of the indigestible information which is contained in all these Schedules. This is really what depresses one so much about this Bill: that the thing is really not workable. I cannot think how many civil servants must have sat around reading all these Acts and deciding which came under the jurisdiction of the Assembly and which could not be devolved. It is fantastic the care and so on that has been given to this particular thing; but it really does make it quite impossible, I think, to know how to proceed.
If one were a Member of the Assembly or a member of a local authority and wanted to try to bring forward something which one thought would be an improvement in Scotland, one can imagine the amount of people that one would have to consult—among others, no doubt, a number of lawyers. This is art absolute bonanza for the lawyers. I do not mind. I am all for people being employed as much as possible. We all know that employing lawyers is rather a slow process and also very often expensive. It may be that their advice is worth all the money that we pay them. I expect it is. I am not running down the lawyers. The fact is that it is expensive. If one is going to try to take any action under these three Schedules, the very start of it would be almost impossible.
If I were in the Assembly, or had been still in local government, I cannot think
432
of the depression that I would feel if I were trying to involve myself in some legislation which was partly devolved, partly not devolved and in which all these different enactments and matters that cannot be enacted are listed very carefully here. It is a perfect maze through which I cannot believe that anybody could find their way. Certainly, no ordinary person could possibly do so. You would require to be either someone in a Civil Service office or a civil servant or a lawyer before you begin to understand the thing at all.
I think that we are going to go through the Schedules very carefully in this Committee so that I am not going to make a comment on individual matters since they will all come up when we discuss Schedule 10 and the various pages that follow and the three clauses which the noble and learned Lord so carefully described to us. But I think this is going to be quite impossible. I cannot believe that the Government feel happy about it. I cannot believe that somebody should not take the whole thing back, think it all out again and try to make it simpler.
The groupings that my noble friend suggested are certainly a very good idea. Other Members of the Committee have suggested other groupings; while some divisions seem to me to be really very odd. For instance, I read that the National Library of Scotland has power to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of the members of the board of trustees, but is not included in the devolved subjects. Why bother to have a provision that the appointment of the board of trustees should be devolved? The National Library of Scotland, like any other national library, wants to have the widest territorial basis possible and a wide number of interesting and brilliant people to choose from. I do not say that the board of trustees might not be well chosen by a devolved Assembly or treated as a devolved matter; but why bother about it? It only adds to the complexity. Either devolve the whole National Library of Scotland—which, I think, would be a great mistake—or leave it in one section. I picked that out at random. It merely struck me when I was looking through the Bill just now.
Surely, it is possible to simplify this. If you do not do so, in my opinion it will be such a tangle and such a problem and so difficult to legislate or to find out what the

433
legislation means that, apart from a glorious method of employing vast quantities of civil servants and a good many lawyers, the ordinary person is going to be completely flummoxed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that this is quite an impossible arrangement and that it should be looked at very carefully again.
Lord BURTON: May I add to what my noble friend Lady Elliot has said? I think she is absolutely correct. It seems to me that the problem is that Part I is too wide-ranging. Let us take housing. It could cover a multitude of sins. All sorts, every time, is very wide-ranging. The only way one has of defining whether an Act was in or was not in, one would have thought, would be in Part III. The question I put to the noble and learned Lord, which I do not think he answered, was: Is it not possible to put in Part III those Acts which are actually devolved?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I would remind the noble Lord that we start with thousands of Acts which may have a bearing on matters which are or are not devolved. It must be remembered that we have already been through clauses that make it clear that the Assembly has within its legislative competence the power to repeal an Act of Parliament. Therefore you cannot start off by saying: "We devolve the subject matter within this Act of Parliament", because that leads to complications as the years go by. The Assembly repeals Acts of Parliament, but it has to keep a kind of glossary of all the repealed Acts so that someone can go through the Scotland Act to the repealed Act of Parliament to find out what the subject matter was that was devolved. The devolution is done by specification of subjects and matters contained within them in Part I of Schedule 10.
The Bill is being criticised for being complicated; the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has just made a criticism of that kind. I must say that that criticism is misconceived. This is complicated, but to say that it is unduly complicated is, in my submission, unsound. If you want to look at complicated Statutes, look at the Income Tax Acts, look at the Taxes Management Acts. I have several copies of these. I get one set per year in my official capacity and I read them avidly.
434
They go to some five volumes in the edition which I have received, which has no annotations at all. They are immensely complicated, and they are immensely complicated because, in a sophisticated and complex society like ours, when you try to apply the laws you do not just write the Ten Commandments: you have to write complicated Statutes. When the noble Baroness says to me: "We must simplify", I would say to her that the price of simplification is uncertainty, and what we achieve in the Statutes in the way we draw them is reasonable certainty.
Of course, you have to go to someone for advice as to what the Statute means; but you have to go to a plumber for advice if you have leaks in your house, and you have to go to an accountant for advice on tax matters. That is the nature of our society. But to suggest that this Statute is unduly complicated is, in my submission, a misunderstanding in the context of others. Is it really more complicated than the annual Finance Act? I would think not.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, mentioned the possible combination of Parts I and II. I answered that when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I would rest on the reasons I gave there. He asked whether the Government would publish a vade mecum. No doubt someone will, but I think it will be found that the ordinary member of the public, who figures so much in our debates, is not going to be desperately interested in all the provisions of Part III of Schedule 10. By and large, the provisions concern the responsibilities of those who have functions to perform and legislation to introduce into the Assembly in Scotland. In so far as it concerns business, I have no doubt they will have to take advice as to how they are affected by these provisions; but I do not think that is a different exercise in character from the kind of advice they have to take about the ordinary Statutes, whether on tax matters, on transport or on anything else which goes through this Parliament at the rate of some 18,000 pages per decade at the present time.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I just say to the noble and learned Lord that of course we all know the Budget is extremely complicated and we do have to get advice, mostly from

435
accountants, as to how the Budget is going to affect us. We know that: it has been going on and it is getting worse. What is so sad about this Bill is that you are turning something which is, on the whole fairly simple—that is, the relationship between the ordinary voter or ratepayer in Scotland —into such a complication that you are going to do with this Bill what is already being done, I admit, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not want to add to the complications attending the ordinary citizen. I want the wretched ordinary citizen not to have to meet complications over every single thing he has to handle in his ordinary life. I admit that the complications of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are appalling, and I am not suggesting that is something that we like: we do not. But honestly, if you are going to add all these things to the ordinary subjects of life which we can already deal with quite happily and well with the Scottish Office within the United Kingdom situation, you are simply adding a hundred more complications and, to me, that is very sad indeed.
Lord POLWARTH: May I ask one further point of the noble and learned Lord? Is there in fact any reason why the Acts in Schedule 10 could not be listed by subject or group rather than chronologically? I have not got the Wales Bill with me, but I am told that they are listed by subject in that Bill. Certainly in Schedule 11, where there are references to Acts these are listed in groups. Would it not be possible to do this without making more difficulties?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The chronological order was chosen because, in the view of the draftsmen, that simplified matters. If you know that there are provisions in a Statute which concern your business—let us say, for example, the Transport Act, or whatever it may he—then it is very easy to find out. You know what the Act is; you go straight to the table and you go down until you come to the relevant date, and if you find no entry, fine. If you find an entry there, then you consult the enactment or the parts of it that are referred to. It is really not such a difficult exercise when you come to do it. I do not really think there is anything I can usefully add at this time.
6.58 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Listening to the exchange, I think that the noble and learned Lord has given an answer that was plausible as far as it affected my noble friend Lady Elliot; she only claimed to be a layman. But the point that the noble and learned Lord neglected to take into account was this: my noble friend Lord Polwarth told the Committee that this organisation, which is a formidable one, had had the expert advice of their legal advisers, who are not unaccustomed to interpreting legislation. I accept at once that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that no legislation can be simple. It is always intricate and, to the layman, seems unnecessarily intricate. But of necessity, no simple legislation will ever work, as he said.
But what is his answer to the legal advisers? The answer he has just given is that the Parliamentary draftsmen have said that to deal with it chronologically is the best way, in their view. When Parliamentary draftsmen have passed it on, they have finished with it; but the people who gave advice to the Committee, through the mouth of my noble friend, are the ones who normally have to take this and deal with it when it has to be worked out as to how it affects individuals. He has told the Committee, passing on the advice of his legal advisers, that this is more intricate than is normal. He has told us that his advisers, who will have to work it, said that this is even more difficult than one normally expects legislation to be.
With that sort of evidence in front of the noble and learned Lord, surely he can say—not because of the laymen members who are merely making a layman's contribution, but in answering those who were quoted by my noble friend—that the Government will look at it? Their advice in operating this is rather more important than that of the Parliamentary draftsmen, who have finished with it once it becomes an Act.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord used the word "plausible", and I am sorry that he did so. I was not trying to be plausible; I was trying to be helpful—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It makes better sense.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Well, I do not know if it is better sense; but I think he misconstrues the character of the problem. It must be remembered that what we are defining in Section 10 is, in the first place, legislative competence. If the Scottish Assembly does nothing, the law in relation to health, which is devolved, or in relation to nuclear weapons, which is not, remains the same. When the Assembly has a mind to change the law about health, in so far as it is competent to do so, because of the provisions of Schedule 10 taken as a whole, then it sets about introducing a Bill and passing it. At that stage, the question of the true meaning of Schedule 10 arises, because it is that Schedule which defines the legislative competence of the Assembly. This Bill does not change the law in relation to health; it changes the legislative competence. It is not Westminster which will be legislating in future about health in Scotland; it is the Scottish Assembly.
When it comes to the other aspect of the matter—what we have been calling, as a form of shorthand, executive devolution—and the business friends of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, find that a Scottish Secretary is seeking to act in a particular way, it is at that point that they ask, "Has he the power to do that?" It is at that point that the question arises, but it arises narrowly in relation to his Act or his subordinate Instrument. So that the ordinary man in the street does not have to carry a copy of the Scotland Act in his pocket, for fear that he breaks the law. The law is as it is contained at the moment in the United Kingdom Statute and in the common law of Scotland, for people in Scotland, and that is the way it remains, until the Legislature in Scotland seeks to alter it.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I share the admiration of the Committee for the explanation of this Schedule which the noble and learned Lord gave us. But I think that he did himself less than justice when, in reply to the noble Baroness, he drew an analogy between these constitutional arrangements and the complexities of our Finance Acts and similar measures. I share the concern of the legal advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. The matter can be simplified and an attempt was made to simplify it in another place, but the Amendments to that end were rejected.
438
There are a number of ways in which it could be done. If it had been desired to devolve those matters presently within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that could have been provided for without any of this kind of complexity and I should have thought that it would not be beyond the wit of man to do that. After all, this has not the complexity of the Finance Act. This is something which is a constitutional measure, in which there should be clarity. What startles me is that this is much more complicated than the Treaty of Rome, and I think that we should try again.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may say so to the Committee, the noble and learned Lord is concealing the issue here, because, first, if you devolve to Scotland all the matters for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible, it is a totally different kind of devolution from the devolution contained in this Bill. Secondly, instead of people being able to find, by looking at this Bill when it is on the Statute Book, what is the extent of devolution, they have then to start, in 1981, 1991 or the year 2010, to ask themselves what were the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1978, and they will be found scattered over a dozen, 20, 30 or even hundreds of Statutes. Accordingly, what the noble and learned Lord calls "simplification" is really a concealment of the problem. What we have done is to face up to the problem and, if it has the appearance of complication, it is at least honest.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. I agree with a number of people who have said that his exposition has been quite admirable, particularly without any notes to go by. If I may say so with respect, it is quite extraordinary how he has mastered this problem and explained it. Indeed, I also admire the fact that he has almost persuaded one that it is really quite simple. I am bound to say that I find the whole matter wildly complicated, but that need surprise nobody.
What I should like to ask is this. He emphasised once that what this made perfectly clear was that it was matters which were devolved, and Schedule 10 refers to the various Acts and the sections

439
of the Acts which are, and which are not, devolved. But I wonder whether I may draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to page 65, which refers to the Control of Pollution Act. If the noble and learned Lord would like to take a little time to consider this, I shall be happy for him to do so. But after referring to the Act the Schedule states:
"The following matters are not included—
(a) those dealt with in section 21, except in so far as they relate to the production of heat from waste".
Presumably you can say that Section 1 is not devolved, or Section 23(2) is not devolved. But how can you say that a certain section is devolved, unless it happens to refer to something such as the production of heat, and yet it is devolved as regards every other production? It seems to me that that is a complication to which the noble and learned Lord might like to address his mind, because it is not, as I see it, a straight devolution or not of sections of Acts. It is apparently the devolution of sections of Acts, as to how they relate to certain processes which the Act covers. I should have thought that, even under the noble and learned Lord's interpretation, that makes it not quite so simple.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I hope that this is the last time that I will speak to your Lordships on this matter. But to take that example, I do not have the Act before me and I do not carry its provisions in my mind. However, in column 2 the wording is, again, the right wording. It is matters that are not included, and the matters that are not included are the matters dealt with in Section 21. If you look at Section 21, you will find that it covers certain matters, and there is an exception, for policy reasons, in relation to the production of heat from waste. But I am sure that your Lordships do not want any more heat from me, so I now sit down.
The MARQUESS of LINLITHGOW: I am very sorry to get the noble and learned Lord up again, but may I make what I consider to be a helpful and simple suggestion? I apologise if it has been suggested before, but I was outside when the debate started. When I was trying to understand this Bill, I found myself bewildered by reading through Schedule 10 and the various groups, and I then thought
440
that, happily, the matters not included in Part II will naturally bear the same number as the groups. But they do not. I now understand that the point has been made. But could the numbers of the groups not be printed against the items?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that those who were unfortunate enough to be in the Chamber when I addressed myself to this matter will have heard the explanation, and the noble Marquess will find it in the Official Report. I think that this is not the time to repeat it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I did not intend to develop such a wide-ranging discussion on this matter, but it reveals a very deep anxiety and I am not in the least surprised. We were all filled with admiration of the manner in which the noble and learned Lord dealt with it, and I shall not tempt him to come again into the fray. But I am bound to say that I was sorry he compared this Bill to the income tax system, which at least does not have any certainly about it, and I think that we might have tried a little harder in our efforts. We shall be examining a number of these matters later on, and, at the moment, I shall content myself with begging leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 371 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS) BILL
7.9 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (64) as first printed for the Lords: the Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, after "Shipbuilders" insert "or any other body corporate which has its principal place of business in Great Britain and which, between 1st January 1976 and 31st December 1977, has in Great Britain—

(i) completed a metal-hulled ship with a length of not less than eighty feet; or

(ii) repaired, refitted or maintained such a ship in a dry-dock or graving dock in which that body corporate has had during that period an interest in possession or a licence to occupy that dry-dock or graving dock for a period of not less than one hundred and fifty days"

2 Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
""length", in relation to a ship, has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) (Length of Ship) Regulations 1968;"
3 Page 3, leave out line 9 and insert—

"(a) in the case of a person employed by, or by a relevant company of, British Shipbuilders, by British Shipbuilders; and

(b) in the case of a person employed by any other relevant company, by that relevant company."

4 Page 3, line 16, at beginning insert "(i)"
5 Page 3, line 18, after "company" insert "of British Shipbuilders"
6 Page 3, line 20, after "Shipbuilders" insert—
"or (ii) any other relevant company to authorise any of its officers or employees to determine on its behalf any such question which falls to be determined by it"
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
7 Because the inclusion of private sector companies in schemes under the Bill is dependent for effect upon the Amendments made by the Lords in page 3, line 36, page 3, line 40 and page 4, line 2, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.
442
For reasons which I will explain in a moment, this Bill has been returned from another place with separate, though closely related, Reasons for disagreeing with two groups of Amendments made in this House. The two groups of Amendments nevertheless bear on the same point, and I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I were to address my brief remarks to them together.
The purpose of all these Amendments is to bring the employees of some privately-owned ship repairing and shipbuilding companies within the scope of a redundancy payments scheme for Great Britain made under the Bill. The substantive Amendment is the first—that is, to page 1, line 22—which would have the effect of widening the definition of "relevant company" in Clause 1. The other eight Amendments are consequential.
The point at issue here—whether schemes under the Bill should apply to the private as well as to the public sector—has been extensively debated during the Bill's passage through Parliament. I naturally make no complaint. I do not propose to resurrect the arguments, first because they have already been extensively rehearsed, but also because the reasons of another place for disagreeing the Amendments rest not on those arguments but on a constitutional matter which the Amendments have raised. It is to this matter that I now turn.
Noble Lords will recall that during our debate in Committee I said that the Government did not intend to ask another place to waive its privilege or to alter the wording of the Money Resolution. That will be found in the Official Report for 9th March. This in itself, not unnaturally, provoked some controversy, but I felt it my duty to make the position perfectly plain so that this House should be under no misapprehension as to the effect of making these Amendments. It has been pointed out that, though rare, there have been cases where a new Money Resolution has been introduced in another place in order to accommodate Amendments made to a Bill in this House. That is quite true. I am advised, however, that in such cases the Amendments concerned were either Government Amendments or were Amendments accepted by the Government. In this instance, as I have emphasised, the Government maintain their view that the Bill should not be

443
amended to bring in some of the private sector, and so there is a quite different situation.
Noble Lords may have seen the terms in which the Speaker in another place ruled that those of our Amendments which needed to be covered by a Money Resolution and were not so covered were not to be discussed in that House. I am sure that it is not the wish of this House to challenge the relations between the Houses or the Government's proper responsibility to control expenditure. I do not believe that that was the intention of those who moved these Amendments. Their purpose has been served but the Government have made clear that they will not change their minds. Since we would all accept that it is not the function of this House to press proposals for increased expenditure I ask the House to accept that it has carried out its proper role, and to agree that it doth not insist on its Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.—(Lord McCluskey).
7.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I agree that it is for the convenience of this Bench, anyway, that we should consider these seven Amendments and, indeed, the other Amendments at one time because they are all devoted to the same subject. If these Amendments had been accepted, then the Bill would have made arrangements under which the schemes would have extended to the private sector of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry and would not have been restricted to the public sector. That would have meant that the Bill would have been fair to all those working in the industry who were suffering redundancy because of the overall situation in the shipbuilding industry.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, some of the Amendments went beyond the Money Resolution but, as he himself has agreed and as we pointed out at the time, there have been precedents in recent years for the Government extending the Money Resolution by a supplementary Money Resolution in order to cover Amendments which have come from this House. The last one that I know of was
444
the Employment Protection Bill, a recent Bill of two years ago, when the Government decided to use a procedural reason for not allowing the Amendments to go further. The Government decided not to test opinion again in another place, the Commons, and did not provide a supplementary Money Resolution. I should like to point out that they could have provided that supplementary Money Resolution—there was nothing against the procedure—but, as the noble and learned Lord has very frankly said, they decided not to do so because they were not Amendments which the Government favoured. That is the reason why the Amendments have been returned on financial grounds.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord about the constitutional position, and of course we would not wish to proceed further. However, I must make it clear that when we moved these Amendments we had no intention that extra money should be made available. The object of these Amendments was the equitable sharing among all those made redundant in the industry of the money which the Government were to make available. Therefore we were not impinging on financial privilege to the extent of intending that there should be additional expenditure, but we were interfering, one might say, with the financial scheme.
My understanding was that for some time the Government were in two minds as to whether or not to accept what we were proposing. I understand that the Government saw' the dilemma and recognised that there would be unfairness in the Bill as it stood. During our proceedings here the noble and learned Lord admitted that there was discrimination in the Bill against some of the workforces in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
It could be that the Government have already gone too far in preparing their schemes under the Bill to be able to backtrack and make what we think would be an important improvement. The result is that there will be discrimination against men who become redundant because they are employees who are not eligible under the schemes provided for in the Bill. Bill Mackenzie, a welder working for a small shipbuilding firm on the Clyde, will not benefit from the Bill, simply because the Government decided in 1976 not to include his firm in the nationalisation Bill.

445
That was the decision of the Government. Jimmy Smith, a welder working a little further along the Clyde and doing exactly the same job for another firm and a member of the same union, will become eligible, simply because, by their deliberate decision, his company was included by the Government in the nationalisation Bill.
That is the kind of discrimination which will occur against the private sector. That private sector was deliberately created and left by the Government when they introduced the nationalisation Bill. At a time when the Government are claiming special concern for smaller firms, this Bill, unamended, makes complete nonsense of that declared policy. The special assignment of Mr. Harold Lever and the sentiments about small firms recently expressed by Mr. Healey at Budget time are entirely contrary to the discrimination against these private sector films and against their workforces.
That discrimination is now to be applied through this Bill. Not only is there to be discrimination but that discrimination will be arbitrary. This is illustrated by the statement last Thursday evening in another place by the Minister of State for Industry, Mr. Kaufman. A private sector shipbuilding firm, the Ailsa Company of Troon, is being taken over by British Shipbuilders. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding. When asked about the eligibility of its employees who have been made or may become redundant, Mr. Kaufman said:
"Employees of Ailsa will qualify under the scheme only if they have been made redundant after the company became a subsidiary of British Shipbuilders".—[Official Report, Commons; 27/4/78; col. 1810.]
This is likely to be a date in the near future, if the negotiations are concluded soon. It simply proves that men who become redundant before that date will not be eligible, while men working in the same firm and made redundant after that date, as yet unknown, will become eligible. It really is unfair and arbitrary to men, many of whom have spent years in this industry. We know it is the same worldwide situation which is causing, and will cause in the next two to four years for which this Bill provides, redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. We all regret that and we have spoken about it before in your Lordships' House. However, when the unions find
446
the discrimination taking place within their membership, as they will in the coming months, I foresee that the Government will come to regret that they did not provide more flexibility in the Bill on the lines of our Amendments.
7.21 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord comes well out of this, but the Government come out badly. I say that the noble and learned Lord comes out of it well because he withstood quite an attack and he made it perfectly clear that the Money Bill would not be altered. He did not want to leave the House under any misapprehension when he could so easily have left the situation hazy. The Government come out if it badly because, although the noble and learned Lord said that it is usual for them to alter and extend a Money Bill only when it is a Government Amendment or when it is something with which they have sympathy, they have the power to extend it if they so wish and I think it is quite deplorable that they should want to hide behind a procedural manoeuvre to prevent Parliament from considering Amendments sent by your Lordships to another place.
It is all very well to say that the Government did not agree with it: the Government did not agree with those Amendments possibly for the reason adduced by my noble friend—that they had wrongly anticipated obtaining the powers, and they began to get things on the move before they had the powers. Probably they had expended money in order to prepare for that when the Bill had not gone through all its stages. If they made that mistake in the early days I do not think they should back it up now by being stubborn and using these procedural methods. The Government are entitled to their view, but from every point of view, bearing in mind the nearness of many votes on this and the view that was expressed from all parts of the House, I should have thought that the Government would have let Parliament as a whole decide it.
To put the Speaker in a position where he virtually has to gag Members of the other place for procedural reasons is not a good thing, particularly as it leads to the unfairness described so vividly by my

447
noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. So congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, but no kudos at all for the Government. It is just one extra manoeuvre which shows that executive dictatorship which I think is cutting across the true desires of the mass of the people.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, for many years I represented a very important shipbuilding area on Tyneside—Swan Hunters—and I also used to speak for the shipbuilders in Sunderland. I am only adding to what my noble friend has said on the matter. I do not myself want to go into any great detail because I have not had the opportunity of examining what the position will be among some of the yards on Tyneside and on the Wear. But in a matter of this kind, where injustice is obviously going to triumph as a result of what has been done in another place, and its acceptance by noble Lords opposite (I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the Government are always talking about being fair, but if it does not suit their policy they just forget that they ever said it), it is important that the facts should be on the record.
Because so far as I know there is nobody here to speak for the shipbuilders on Tyneside and on Wearside, I want to add to what my noble friend has said tonight. I hope that those who are interested in shipbuilding, and in fairness for their employees, will see to it that in the shipbuilding areas of the North East it will be made perfectly plain that the Government did not, for their own reasons, try to make things fair and just. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, the Government come out of this very badly indeed. I am glad to add my voice to that and I hope it will be known in my part of the world.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert "or to any other relevant company not being a relevant company of British Shipbuilders, as the case may be"
9 Clause 3, page 3, line 40, at end insert "or the other relevant company in question"
10 Page 4, line 2, at end insert "or the other relevant company in question, as the case may be."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
11 Because they would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
7.28 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11.
I have nothing to add. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not follow the speeches by going into the merits of the matter, for this reason. I made my position as clear as I could at the time and I do not think I can help matters by reiterating what I said then. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11 .—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I entirely understand the position taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and particularly after his tour de force earlier today on the Scotland Bill we would not expect him to restate his position, which we know. He has been an advocate for a Department with whose dealings he would not normally be concerned, and I think he put the case plainly and frankly when the Bill was going through your Lordships' House. We are only sorry that the decision was taken elsewhere and has resulted in these Amendments not being accepted.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 p.m. until 8.10 p.m.]

SCOTLAND BILL
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 372:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Review of Local Government
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, not less than 28 days after the first order to be made under section 79 of this Act has been approved by each House of Parliament, arrange for a review of the structure of Local Government in Scotland to identify changes made necessary or desirable when the Assembly is established.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of that review, that changes in the structure of Local Government are needed, he may, after consultation with the First Secretary, introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 372. It is covering the same subject as Amendment No. 168, so I do not think we have lost anything by restarting at this moment, and I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his place. I put down Amendment No. 372 on the Marshalled List not because I disagree with the purpose in the Amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, but because I thought there was a different way in which this could be done. I think it is for the convenience of the Committee generally if, when a subject is somewhat complicated, one puts down one's alternative, because then everyone has the chance to study beforehand the different approach.
I agree with what is clear from both Amendments, that if and when an Assembly is set up there are likely to be changes in local government; this will become necessary. It is probable, and it has already been stated several times during the passage of the Bill, that because another tier of government will be coming in, local government in Scotland could be changed to a single purpose system, authorities with a single purpose, rather than the two-tier system which now exists. I would remind your Lordships that the Wheatley Commission, when it made its report in 1969—and its membership included representatives of the major Parties as well as other distinguished persons—unanimously recommended a
450
two-tier system of local government. After it had come into effect, in 1975 or so, quite a number of changes were made to the Wheatley Commission's recommendations, and I was responsible for many of those changes. Nonetheless, at the time it made its report it was unanimously in favour of the two-tier system to replace the four kinds of authority which had existed in Scotland before that.
At the time there was general agreement with that. I met very few people who disagreed with the idea of a two-tier system at that time. Of course, we were all concentrating on whether the Shetland and Orkney Islands should have a separate kind of status; whether there should be a region for the Borders, and what should happen to Fife and so on. These were all matters which were considered at great length and changes were made. But at that time the two-tier system was accepted by a very large majority of people concerned and interested. Now there is some criticism of it, but there seems no doubt to me that if the Bill goes through in its present form, and if it is endorsed in a referendum, then it will be thought that local government in Scotland needs to be reviewed, with the possibility of a new system of single purpose authorities.
The difference between my Amendment, No. 372, and Amendment No. 168, is the way in which the review is to be carried out. I am suggesting that it should be started as soon as the first action is taken to set up the Assembly. I have worded the Amendment in my name,
"The Secretary of State shall, not less than 28 days after the first order to be made under…this Act…";
so that is when the pistol goes, when the whistle blows. After a referendum, if the Bill is accepted, the Secretary of State will start the review of local government.
There are two reasons for that. First, I think that the relations between the new Assembly and local government in Scotland will be very delicate, and particularly so at the beginning; and I think it is important that the relations between the Assembly and local government in Scotland should be good because the Assembly is going to be responsible for a great deal of what local government covers. The second reason is that I think that a review should not be held up. Amendment No. 168 simply allows the

451
Assembly itself to carry out a review within a matter of four years. The changes which people will consider necessary in local government will be largely because of the expected existence of the Assembly, and no time should be lost in starting the review. That is why I think the Secretary of State should initiate the review, and that it should be Parliament at Westminter which takes whatever action results from it. That is the difference between my Amendment and Amendment No. 168, which suggests that the Assembly itself should in due course carry out the review.
The Assembly is going to be so busy getting itself set up and going through all the procedures we have discussed, choosing an executive and staff and taking over the functions which are to be devolved to it, that it will itself not be functioning properly for many months, maybe a year or two, and it will be in no position to start telling local government how it should be reorganised. I regard the operation of the review of local government as part of the establishment of this Assembly, and inasmuch as Parliament at Westminster, through this Bill, is considering the establishment of the Assembly, then Parliament at Westminster should also immediately be tackling the necessary adjustments in local government as part of the operation of setting up the Assembly. So I agree with the purpose of Amendment No. 168, but I am simply suggesting that it should be handled differently, and also that it should be handled more quickly.
I foresee a period, while the Assembly is being established, when there will be many complaints in Scotland that they are being over-governed, that there are too many tiers of government and that nothing is happening and no review being started. My Amendment would ensure that the review would start straight away. With it one should consider—I just draw attention to it—Amendment No. 374, which comes in Schedule 10, and there may be other consequential Amendments too, because that is simply there to indicate that the initial review of local government is not a devolved subject; that that would be carried out by the Secretary of State, if my Amendment were adopted; but that thereafter local government would be handed over to the Assembly, subject to the qualifications in Schedule 10.
I am not suggesting that my Amendment is one that we should press, and I think that the alternative Amendment, No. 168, should certainly be considered. But I think that a review of local government will be expected. I do not think it should be regarded as opening up war with the regions, although it has already been stated earlier today that the Regional Councils are likely to be the tier to suffer as a result of review.
The review must be carried out with an open mind. It will be necessary with this new system and a new Assembly coming into existence.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: I owe the House an apology for not being here to move my Amendment. However, no harm has been done because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I are agreed that both Amendments are focused on the same point; namely, the need for the reform of local government. If I had moved my Amendment, my method would have been somewhat different from that employed in moving Amendment No. 372, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. We both started from exactly the same premise. We were unhappy about the present form of local government. We felt it was of great importance that the Assembly, in one way or another, should have an opportunity, very shortly, to look at the whole question.
The proposal before your Lordships is that the matter should be initiated by the Westminster Parliament and then go to the Assembly for consideration. Frankly, I do not mind whether it is that way or whether it starts with the Assembly and then goes back to Parliament. It is important that we should be sure that there will be a real look at the matter. I hope that will not be looked upon as a war. People should recognise that this is in the real interests of the Scottish people. Your Lordships and I know that they feel that this matter needs looking at. They are not happy with it.
If it is known that one of the results or sequels to the Assembly being set up is that there will be a look at local government, I think it will make the chances of its being accepted, particularly in the referendum, that much better, as "We shall have a chance to look at what is happening" will be a good slogan. I

453
do not think it matters whether the initiative comes from the Assembly or the other way about. It is important that the matter should be examined. I fully support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I, too, should like to support this Amendment. We are all agreed that the Assembly, whatever else it does, will cost a certain amount of money. I see, from the section of the Bill dealing with its financial effects, that it comes to a total of about £13 million per annum, without counting the original capital costs. It would be unfair to count the original capital costs, as obviously the Royal High School would have needed some form of reconstruction, anyway. I do not regard this as a waste of money, even if the Assembly fails to materialise.
We want to save money. There is no better way of saving money than to have a reorganisation of local government in Scotland and making it more local. It suffers at the moment from one huge region, which covers 50 per cent. of the population of Scotland, and a series of other regions, which, although much smaller, are still considered by the people of Scotland to be rather large and very far remote from them. The other snag is that the regions and the districts at the moment appear simply to loathe each other. Ours, which nominally have the same political complexion at both levels, spend their time battling against each other. If one writes a letter to one authority one must send copies to the others. If not, the other bodies feel hard done by. That makes it expensive both for the administration and for the people who have to communicate with the region or district, as everything must be duplicated, including postal charges. Therefore, the sooner there is a review of local government in Scotland, the better. I thoroughly support my noble friend's Amendment, or the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which unfortunately was not moved.
8.27 p.m.
The Earl of MINTO: I wonder whether I might declare an interest as a regional councillor in Scotland and speak one or two words to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of
454
Croy. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Perth, should have been very unhappy about his Amendment. There will be a fairly long period of time taken by the Assembly, if it comes into being, before it settles down. To have saddled it with the extra burden of looking at local government reform would have been almost too much to expect of it. I am not sure that one necessarily wants to have people looking at local government who might, in a sense, have to declare an interest in their particular side of the business of the government of Scotland.
Had it been a straight question of support for Amendment No. 168, which was not moved, I should have felt that I must have spoken against it. However, as we are considering Amendment No. 372, there is one point that I should like to make before the Minister answers. It is fair to say that the few months that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, thinks it will take the Assembly to settle down is an underestimate. The noble Lord extended it to perhaps a year or two when he spoke. It will take considerably longer.
If I may, from my personal experience, I should like to say that we have just this very month finished the first four years of the reorganised local government in Scotland, although admittedly only three of them were spent in an executive capacity. The first year was, if you like, a running-in period with the authorities who were in control previously. It would not be untrue to say that the past four years have been a period throughout which we have been consistently learning. We are still learning now, after four years. We are aware that we are not perfect. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that we are conscious of this. We are conscious that the people of Scotland are not too happy with the way that things are going.
Having said that, it must be appreciated by your Lordships' Committee that the reform of local government will be a far more complex business than simply doing away with the regions, which is what one so frequently hears about. It is not a question of doing away with the regions at all. It may well be aiming towards a single-tier structure. I should personally prefer to see that. But even that will not be a simple problem when the particular powers that are devolved to local government at

455
present are as complex as they are. Therefore, I should not like to see this matter rushed. I am marginally concerned—I simply put it that way—by the condition that is in Amendment No. 372, that the period of time should be not less than 28 days after the first order. Whoever looks at local government may also wish to look at the Assembly once it has got itself a little bit under way.
I should not like to think that we started to look at local government too soon in case the full benefit of that particular review was lost in the purpose, as I see it, of cooling the Scottish people against the possibility of a very great increase in cost of another tier of Government. Therefore, if we could possibly have an assurance from the Minister that this would not necessarily be rushed, I personally as a regional councillor would be very happy indeed to know that local government was to be looked at in Scotland once again.
Lord BROWN: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government will consider this matter, if not for the very constructive reasons put forward which seem to me to be sound, for the reason that the Government are very keen for the referendum to go in favour of the Assembly. It is quite possible that the insertion of this new clause might be the turning factor in the minds of that slim number of people whose votes might decide whether the referendum will go forward in favour or perhaps against the Assembly. There are many people, especially in the Strathclyde Region, the fringes of Argyll as well as the Islands and elsewhere, who are fed up with present local government in the form of the enormous Strathclyde Region. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the new clause.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. In my view it is extremely important. I agree with all that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has said. He and I exchanged places when local government was reorganised—I went out of it and he came into it in the same area. Therefore, he has had experience, which I did not have, of the working of the reorganisation of local government.
456
However, I gave evidence to the Wheatley Commission, although at that time we had no idea that there was to be any suggestion of an Assembly. Therefore, we were thinking in terms of how to improve local government and how to make it more effective. Also, in some areas the units were very small and it seemed wise to make them larger. Certainly I had no idea in those days that we were to be faced with so many tiers of government with so many people involved. That is one of the reasons why I would urge the Government to accept the Amendment and to try to do something about the situation.
On the 6th December last year I tabled a Question for answer by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, about how many people were to be involved in the Government of Scotland if the Assembly and reorganisation took place. I have the figures with me. I remind your Lordships that a most extraordinary number of people are involved for a country which contains about 5- million people. On the district councils there are to be 1,117 people; on the regional councils there are to be 432, plus 75 on the Island councils, making a total of 1,624. If we include the community councils this has not happened all over but it could happen all over—which, of course, are tiny unpaid units, 14,656 people will be involved. We shall have in the Assembly somewhere between 140 and 150 people but the number has not yet been finally decided. There will be 71 Members of Parliament for the United Kingdom Parliament. There will be eight Scottish Members for the European Assembly.
Surely there is something very strange in a reorganisation of local government which involves 16,506 people, if we include the community councils. If ever there was a reason for reviewing the situation, especially in the light of an Assembly, then surely it lies in the colossal number of people involved. Quite frankly, my view is that it would mean everybody being the governors and very few people being the governed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and his friends will accept the Amendment with the provisos that have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I support the Amendment.
8.35 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): Before I make what I hope will be one or two pertinent remarks, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that although I accept entirely the figures that she has just read to the Committee, it is fair to say that, apart from the new community council provision, the other figures show a reduction in the number of councillors involved in the public life of Scotland post, as opposed to pre, reorganisation. I think that I am absolutely correct in saying that, and perhaps she will give some thought to that as being a balancing factor.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I shall certainly check that point, but I have quoted the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave me on 6th December 1977.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, they are the figures which are current at present. All I am saying is that before reorganisation the numbers were rather greater. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is agreeable that we talk to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I recognise that it was unfortunate that his own Amendment was not moved at the appropriate time. I understood that the main point made by the noble Earl was his concern about initiative. The key point for me to emphasise to the noble Earl is that the Assembly will have the initiative. The Assembly has the necessary legislative competence and I direct his thoughts in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in moving his Amendment has expressed a mild dissatisfaction with the present state of local government in Scotland. I think that he would find support for his views in some quarters, but not in others. Many would take the view, as I do, that it would be a mistake to review at this time a whole new structure of local government introduced as recently as four years ago. The noble Lord himself made reference to the fact that it was under his leadership that the then Administration brought in the reformed system. I accept that the reformed system carried considerable public assent in that period.
458
My own view is that the system today—and here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Minto—has really just reached a true formation. I totally agree with his point that during the first year there was a period of interregnum between the phasing out of the old system and the bringing in of the new, and that really it has been in operation for only three years. That is the point that Members of your Lordships' Committee must keep well to the forefront of their minds when considering this issue.
Within the legislative competence of this Bill we are considering the devolution of extensive powers to a raw Scottish Administration. My noble friend Lord Brown said that the Government should give very serious consideration to the Amendment placed before the Committee tonight. I would reply to my noble friend in this way: What could be more appropriate for such an Administration than the oversight of local government in Scotland? That is what the Scotland Bill does at present. The phrase:
"Constitution, area and general powers and duties of local authorities and similar bodies"
in Group 5 in Schedule 10 devolves an ability to legislate about the structure of local government and, in any structure consisting of more than one tier of local authorities, the distribution of local government functions within that structure. The Government consider that it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to leave it to the Assembly to decide whether reform of local government is needed and, if so, what form it should take and when it should be undertaken.
In the Government's view, these matters can best be considered by those directly involved—that is, the Scottish Administration—as it has direct contact with the daily problems of administering local services which guide the forming of opinions about the best type of local government structure. When Parliament devolves responsibilities, it must, in the Government's view, leave the devolved administration to deal with them in accordance with its own wisdom. In any case, the fact that the Secretary of State and Parliament are no longer directly concerned with the main areas of local government administration will mean that they are ill-placed to decide how local government is best organised.

459
Secondly, how is the Assembly to exercise its functions in relation to local government and local authority services while the reorganisation imposed by the Government is taking place? I put this question: is this likely to help relations between the different levels of Government? For myself, I would doubt it. Thirdly, once any legislation produced by the Government has been passed, the powers in the new clause are exhausted. I ask the Committee: What is to stop the Assembly legislating the old system back in again if it so wishes? These problems serve to illustrate the difficulties of trying to reinsert the Secretary of State into the middle of a complex of interrelated devolved matters and then taking him out again.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, touched upon the argument—and to be fair he made no great point of this—that, as local government is presently constituted in Scotland, we shall, once we get an Assembly there, have an additional tier of government. That is certainly a point that is sometimes made in public comment in Scotland today. However, the Government do not accept the extra tier argument. The powers to be exercised by the Scottish Administration are, for the initial period at least, those hitherto exercised by Ministers. Of course, the Assembly may extend those powers by its own legislation, but they will remain essentially of the character of central Government powers and not local government powers.
It seems likely that the Scottish Administration and the Assembly, given their responsibilities not only for general local government matters but also for many of the main matters with which local authorities deal—for example, education, housing, town and country planning, et cetera—will in due course turn their minds to consideration of the structure of local government. I think that that should be freely acknowledged. But, in my view, any case that exists for change cannot exist independently of the Scottish Assembly's considerations.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, have referred to the difficulty that sometimes exists—and in some places consistently exists—between the two tiers of
460
local authority structure. This is certainly the principal criticism which can and is being made of the present system. However, I must say to your Lordships that the conversion of a system devised for two tiers into a system consisting of one tier would require—and I think that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, accepted this—a very comprehensive review. It certainly cannot be sensibly achieved by the abolition of one tier only. That is not an answer; it creates a further difficulty and I think most who know about local government in Scotland will accept that. Therefore, I felt that I should make that point to your Lordships.
I do not think that I should say any more. I believe that I have made the Government's position clear. For the reasons that I have attempted to set before your Lordships, I would be unable to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord BROWN: I should like to put something clearly on the record. My noble friend has been discussing this as though this new clause committed the Government to reorganise local government. Of course, it does not do anything of the sort; it commits the Government to look at it. We could not possibly envisage very much happening in that direction within the next three to four years, subject to the agreement of the Assembly. The point I want to put on the record is this. Few would doubt that the referendum will be, in the words of the Duke of Wellington:
"A very close run thing",
and that this Amendment might conceivably win that small additional number of votes which would cause the referendum to come down in favour of the Assembly rather than against it.
This is not a very big commitment; it is merely a commitment to look at the subject at an early stage. I do not know whether this sort of argument will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and his friends on the Opposition Benches—perhaps it will not. However, I wanted to put that firmly on the record, because I still hope that the Secretary of State will look very carefully at this.
Lord KIRKHILL: My noble friend certainly has it very firmly on the record.

461
My riposte is clear: the Government are firmly of the opinion that the matter of the possibility of a re-reform of local government in Scotland must be left to the determination of the Scottish Assembly, when constituted.
The Earl of MINTO: I should like to raise one further point. During the Committee stage we have heard a great deal about the frictions that there will be between the Assembly and the other place, the Assembly and your Lordships' House and the Assembly and the other place and your Lordships' House. From these Cross-Benches, I am now trying to act in the best interests of Scotland. I am desperately anxious that the fourth quarter of the total frictional factor should not be allowed to exist if it can possibly he avoided. That quarter is the friction that will inevitably take place between the Assembly and local government, because if the Assembly is the body which is to review or reform local government, unless the Assemblymen have actually worked in local government during the last four years, by its very nature the Assembly will virtually be ignorant of local government as it exists today. There will be the most appalling friction. I can see them marching from Strathclyde to St. Andrew's House in vast numbers.
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise for intervening, but surely that is the very point. If they march upon St. Andrew's House from the various parts of Scotland, then the Assemblymen will be more careful in their re-thinking of the reform of local government.
The Earl of MINTO: With respect, it is a very much longer walk from Strathclyde to London. I simply do not like this inbuilt friction which exists, while the Assembly, as we understand it in the Bill—so long as we understand the Bill—is to have authority over local government. That being the case, I am warning your Lordships in the Committee stage that if matters are allowed to remain as they are in the Bill, it will not be in the best interests of Scotland, and it will make an already extremely bad Bill very much worse.
8.48 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Minto,
462
has taken part in this brief debate. He is, as he said, a regional councillor and is familiar with the introduction of the new system following the reform of local government in Scotland. He has just emphasised one of the points I made in moving this Amendment, which was my anxiety about the relations between the new Assembly and local government—because they will be very delicate. There is likely to be friction if local government thinks that one of the first things the Assembly, before it has even got itself organised, will do is to try to slash local government, knowing very little about it. That is certainly putting starkly one of the reasons I gave for moving this Amendment.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, whose name was attached to the alternative Amendment, was somewhat critical of the present system, as some people in Scotland are, because the districts and the regions appear to battle with each other. He said that in his area the District Council and the Regional Council were battling with each other. I would only tell him that this seems to have happened before. Before the reform in local government, there was one area in Scotland where I can tell him that the battles were far worse than anything he has described. In the most populated part of Scotland, the Glasgow conurbation, the county councils—Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire and even Ayrshire—and the Glasgow Corporation were equals but they fought each other. Anyone who was a betting man—and I am not—could guarantee that if one of those county councils adopted one policy then the one next door would adopt the opposite one simply out of spite. There was that kind of bad relationship. We must in criticising the present system, remember that it was worse before in certain important areas of Scotland.
I have made it clear that if it were not for this Bill and the prospect of a new Assembly I should not be recommending a review of local government at this time. I understand the Government's view when they say that they think it is too soon for a review. I should have said the same if it were not for this Bill. But it is because this Bill will be inserting a new additional tier of government—and there is no doubt about that—that it will be necessary to carry out a review. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, pointed

463
out the review does not necessarily need to come up with recommendations for change; it could recommend little change, or no change. The important point is that there will be great dissatisfaction in Scotland if a review has not been started.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, rightly pointed out that my Amendment would start the review almost immediately after this Bill had been endorsed by referendum, and when the Motions were starting to set up an Assembly. He said that he thought it would take several years for the Assembly really to get into action. My Amendment does not say when the review should finish. I have no intention of suggesting that it should be carried out within a certain time, but a lot of people in Scotland will be very dissatisfied and worried, and will consider themselves really over-governed if there is no review taking place or being started. That is why I put in a starting date, but I had no intention that it should be carried out quickly. I think that discretion must be left there.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, speaking for the Government, seemed to think that my Amendment would mean that central Government at Westminster would go ahead with whatever recommendations the review produced without the Assembly having a say. But I specially put into my Amendment the words,
"after consultation with the First Secretary".
I made it permissive that the Secretary of State may introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament. I am certain that he would have to consult the First Secretary, and thereby get the views of the Assembly. But I am pretty sure that the Assembly would be likely to agree that changes recommended by a review of this kind were necessary in general. My worry is the other way round; it is that the Assembly, before it has organised itself, will be trying to abolish most of local government in Scotland. It is much more likely that it will not object to recommendations for a review. The danger is that the Assembly will try to slash local government in the first year or two before it has really set itself up, or is in a position to make a judgment—or that is what people will think. That is where the frictions will arise to which the noble Earl referred.
464
This Amendment is the result of some amateur drafting by me after a talk with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Even if I put down one consequential Amendment, I would not regard it as a piece of perfect drafting and I shall not press it. I had hoped that the Government would have accepted the purpose behind it, and I am most disappointed that they appear to think that nothing should be done until the Assembly is in a position to institute a review and carry out recommendations. I disagree with that, but I would not wish to press this Amendment, and at this stage I shall beg leave to withdraw it. Before I do so, however, I give way to the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I should like to make this point: the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said that the reform of local government is within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and that was if my Amendment had come forward fully recognised. I believe that this is a fact that should be widely known. I believe it should be widely known from the start. Therefore, I think it is important, if we can somehow or other, to indicate this fact at the Report stage.
It is equally clear that one does not want to order the Assembly to undertake such a review and actually bring about a reform. Indeed, in the Amendment which I had had in mind to move, it was specifically laid down that it should merely consider whether any action should be taken to reform the existing system. I hope that in spite of the withdrawal of the Amendment which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has in mind, the Government will all the same consider whether, at the Report stage, for the reasons I have given and for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and many others have advanced, they themselves could somehow indicate that the Assembly not only has the power but should usefully use it at least to look at things before too long.
Lord BURTON: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned the friction between the districts and the county councils. Before the regional reorganisation, the friction was surely only in the

465
Labour-controlled areas: now it is universal. If we have an Assembly, there will be friction not only between the Regions and the districts, but between the Regions and the Assembly as well.
The Earl of MINTO: I cannot be present in your Lordships' Chamber and allow that comment to go by without refuting it so far as the Region in which I live is concerned. The relationship in my Region between the districts and the Region are absolutely first-class, and I should not like Lord Burton's comment to be reported as having been supported by me.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Before the noble Lord replies, I hate to play the rôle of spectre at the feast, and in this context I defer to the knowledge and experience of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Brown, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. However, I have listened with great interest to the debate on this Amendment. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that if there had been no Bill he would not have been in favour of a review of local government. But he said that the Bill made such a review necessary. The question I should like to ask the Government arising out of this, if the noble Lord the Minister cares to reply to it, is, do the Government think that a constant state of flux in the context of our constitutional arrangements is a good recipe for success?
8.59 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Your Lordships will see that I am in splendid isolation on these Benches. My noble friends from Scotland have asked me to hold the fort here tonight, if that is not too Anglo-Saxon an expression to use in an Assembly that is dealing with Celtic matters. I really must express surprise that so many of the Conservative speakers tonight have so little confidence in this Assembly. I think that all their arguments about the difficulties associated with local government in Scotland and in Wales should lead them to say, "Let us leave this to the Assembly", particularly as in Group 5 of Schedule 10 the powers which have been devolved are indicated. I therefore express great surprise that so many distinguished noble Lords from Scotland should, at this stage, have so
466
little confidence in that Assembly, which will be an elected Assembly in Scotland and which will do a great deal of good for that country, without any reference to the Secretary of State at any stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: I agreed with the remarks of the lone Liberal spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who leapt into the defensive breach of a substantial character caused by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I could not see the Government accepting on report an Amendment of the kind he tabled, nor an Amendment of the type such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has tabled tonight, for the reasons I have been explaining. Those reasons were enunciated by Lord Lloyd, I thought with considerable succinctness. To answer the specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of course I agree with him that no Government could possibly enjoy the prospect of a constant state of public flux in any part of the Kingdom, On the other hand, I think it is clear that in Scotland today there is a real desire to have within Scotland an Assembly, and the Government are committed to bringing that about.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad that resuming my seat when I did enabled the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to intervene as well as enabling a Liberal voice to be heard in the absence of the Scottish Peers who had been occupying those Benches, and I welcomed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Whether his intervention represented loyalty to the Lib-Lab pact I do not know, but I can tell him that my Amendment and what I said was no reflection on the new Assembly. That new Assembly will find it difficult enough coping with the many tasks which will occupy it fully in its early months and years.
I have regarded any review of local government, starting when the Assembly is about to be set up, as something which is a counterpart of setting up the Assembly and not as a job to be carried out by the Assembly itself; it is part of changing the constitutional arrangements in Scotland. That is why leaving it to the Assembly would mean putting it off for a long time. I would inform Lord Lloyd that there is a

467
feeling, which one hears every weekend in Scotland, that if an Assembly is established then some changes must be made in the structure of local government, otherwise there will be too much government. That is the reason why there will be complaints when the new Assembly is being established if it appears that absolutely nothing is being done, that nobody is even looking at it, and that is where I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, though at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Matters within legislation competence of Assembly, and within powers of Scottish Executive]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 373 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 169.
[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]
9.3 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 47, line 31, after ("below") insert ("and subject to the reservation of functions listed in Schedule 15 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this very quickly. I tabled this Amendment, and informed the Government accordingly, simply to get clarification of the purpose of Schedule 15 and to draw attention to it. Schedule 15 gives a list of reserved functions by certain public bodies and local authorities, but it refers only to the clause which contains the definitions. If one looks up Schedule 15, one sees against it that its companion clause is the definitions clause, and when one turns to that one finds "Reserved functions".
When one comes across the words, "reserved functions" in the Bill, one presumes that they mean functions reserved to Westminster and not simply a term of art, a special term,forthereserved functions of certain public bodies listed here; and in fact there are only two or three places in the Bill where I have found the words, "reserved functions" used. I therefore hope the Minister can tell us in a few words
468
where Schedule 15 fits into the Bill, as at the moment it is associated only with the definition of "reserved functions".
Lord McCLUSKEY: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for tabling this Amendment, because by so doing he has done a service in that it has enabled us to look critically at Schedule 15 before we actually reach it. That has been of value, in that I do not like it; we intend to look at it again and I think that, rather than go into what I hope will become an historical account as to why it appeared in that form, I should say I am not very happy with the term, "reserved functions", because it suggests that the purpose of Schedule 15 is to secure reservation, when it is not. The term "reserved functions" is used in Schedule 15 in a rather technical sense, but because of the use of the word "reserved" it looks as if it means non-devolved, whereas in fact on one view of some of the functions listed there, it might be seen that they contain matters which are devolved. We shall therefore look at it again and I hope that Lord Campbell, who tabled the Amendment to probe, will be satisfied that his probe has drawn blood. We shall go away and hope to come back at the time of Schedule 15 and give a better explanation.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Surely it turns up in Clause 63(2), and that is the only place in the Bill where it occurs.
Lord McCLUSKEY: No, that is not the only place in the Bill where it occurs; it occurs from time to time in the Schedules. Within the clauses it appears in Clause 63(2), as the noble Viscount points out. I think he will follow what I have been saying; namely, that the definition which appears in Clause 77, and therefore in Schedule 15, is a technical one. We could have called them, "designated functions" or, "blue functions", if you like—it is a purely technical matter—but I am not altogether happy about the word "reserved". I have started the investigation of this matter again, and I hope that when we reach Schedule 15 I will be able to say that we have simplified the matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been so frank. I would

469
repeat that there are two points here. First, why is this Schedule attached to Clause 77 and therefore simply relates to the definition? We hope at a later stage that that will be explained. The second point is that of confusion, that the use of the words, "reserved functions" could cause ambiguity when one meets the phrase in various parts of the Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to say that I should have given a particular reference for the benefit of the noble Viscount. I should like to refer him to page 45 and to the last entry in Schedule 4. We have been through Schedule 4 before. That is one example where the words in question are used. It refers to the consent requirement, which we looked at some time ago. The entry there refers to,
"Land held by excepted statutory undertakers or held for the purpose of reserved functions by a local authority or any body formed by local authorities".
That is just another example of this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I do not want to prolong this investigation of the Bill. It is clear that this question needs investigation, and the Government have said that they will look into it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.9 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 48, line 1, at beginning insert—
("GROUP 1 (Scottish public service)
All matters regulating the Scottish public service.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment to Schedule 10 should be read in conjunction with my substantive Amendment No. 204 (on page 10 of the Marshalled List) which seeks to establish a separate Scottish public service. The proposal in the Bill is that service as an officer or servant of a Scottish Secretary, or the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General, shall be service in the Home Civil Service. As we know only too well, certain functions are being devolved, and it seems logical to me that, if we are doing that, we should at the same time transfer responsibility for the Civil Service; otherwise, individual civil servants will find
470
themselves faced with an undesirable conflict of loyalties between Edinburgh and Whitehall.
It seems to me that the unity of the United Kingdom is not in any way imperilled by the creation of a new public service. As has been mentioned by many noble Lords in a number of debates during the Committee stage of the Bill in recent weeks, about 1,000 extra civil servants will have to be recruited as a result of devolution. I have listened to a considerable number of the debates, and in my recollection no comment has been made as to where these additional civil servants are to be recruited from. Undoubtedly some will be recruited from the existing Civil Service, but I hope that a considerable number will be recruited from local government, too.
The efficient functioning of devolved government in Scotland may well depend to a large degree on finding the correct balance between central and local government expertise to run the devolved functions. With this in mind, it is essential to ensure that the experience and skills which the local government officer could contribute to the successful operation of devolved government should not be overlooked. The officers of the great metropolitan authorities of England belong to a separate service. I can see no valid reason why the same situation should not appertain in Scotland. This was recognised—though this is not an absolutely strict parallel—in the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which provided that existing civil servants concerned with the administration of public services in Northern Ireland should become officers of the Northern Ireland Government, so creating an independent service in Northern Ireland. The Eighth Schedule of that Act provides for compensation arrangements for existing officers.
If the Amendment was to find favour this evening, it would of course be necessary to put down additional Amendments to cover these particular subjects. But it seems to me that to create a separate service in Scotland, to go along with the other powers that we are proposing to devolve, makes sense, and could lead to much less friction than I believe will result from the present proposals in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Amendment No. 170, which would insert a new group into Schedule 10, and the associated Amendment to Clause 62, provide, as my noble friend has pointed out, for the establishment of a separate Scottish public service, which would be under the control of the Assembly, and independent from the United Kingdom Civil Service. The Government reject this suggestion because they see great benefits in retaining a unified Civil Service. Let me explain the Government's view. First, we believe that a unified service is likely to be both more economical and more efficient. Separate services would need more staff and greater expenditure on recruitment, training and the like.
A single service would provide the devolved administration with a wider range of talent and expertise and provide a more flexible and attractive career structure. This would be especially true for those specialists, who would necessarily be employed in small numbers, who would otherwise have limited chances of varied job experience and a low ceiling to their promotion prospects. Secondly, a unified service will provide an established and experienced means of sorting out matters of common concern to Westminster and Edinburgh. There are bound to be at least teething problems when the Assembly is first established and a unified service will do much to assist in the solution of these problems.
In the course of these debates many noble Lords have made reference to the possibilities of conflict, and I believe that a unified Civil Service, with the kind of contacts that will be made within that unity, will help to ease out these unnecessary conflicts. Thirdly—and I lay great importance on this—the staff themselves in the Civil Service have left the Government in no doubt whatsoever that they wish to remain part of a unified service. We cannot assume that they would necessarily wish to transfer to a different service from that to which they were recruited. It is clearly necessary to weigh very carefully their expressed wishes. Indeed, one would have to have very good reasons for departing from the clearly expressed wishes of the staff. This matter came up in another place at the end of last year in a Committee debate on this same Bill, on 6th December 1977,
472
and following upon that the Government again sought, and again received, the views of the Civil Service and they are very strongly to the effect that the Civil Service should remain united.
There is another argument and it is this. There would be insufficient time to divide the Civil Service before the Assembly comes into operation. To set up a separate Civil Service would be a considerable legal and administrative operation, would directly involve the rights of a very large number of individuals, and in the immediate aftermath of devolution we consider that the time and energy would be better spent in ensuring that the new machine runs smoothly.
I should deal with the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He suggested, I think, that after devolution there might be problems of divided loyalty for those civil servants who will be serving the Scottish Secretaries. This is a view which the Government reject and they have been supported in that view by the staff side of the National Whitley Council. Civil servants of the Assembly will not serve two masters. They will serve a Scottish Secretary and there is nothing in the history of the Civil Service to suggest that its members provide anything less than complete loyalty to those who are there to command it. Such fears have been expressed from time to time on the creation of new institutions to which Parliament has granted a measure of independence from Government—the Manpower Services Commission and the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service are examples—but such fears have proved groundless.
I should say something about the longer term. The Government are confident that the new Administration in Scotland will see these advantages in maintaining a single service, but the Government do not have a closed mind on the matter so far as the longer term is concerned. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider any views which the Administration might wish to put forward once they have had a chance to judge the effectiveness of the existing system. Of course we would also at the same time have regard to the views of the civil servants themselves. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of taking them

473
with us in any change that to be made.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: May I thank my noble friend Lord McCluskey for his reply. I am not entirely convinced by what he has said. I do not entirely feel that in fact the proposed structure would be more flexible and more attractive to those involved. I feel that people could be continually looking and regarding their service in the Scottish part of the Home Civil Service as promotion to higher things elsewhere and that therefore this will not necessarily be a good thing with regard to their career structure. However, I was pleased to hear that the Government have no closed mind on this matter in the long term, and I shall study with interest the full text of the noble and learned Lord's reply and maybe return to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 48, line 3, leave out ("Family planning.").
The noble Lord said: This is a matter in respect of which we feel that legislation North and South of the Border ought not to differ significantly. First, in order not to repeat myself for this and the following Amendment, I should like to give a very brief background. There is a wide and general apprehension in the medical professions in Scotland that the proposals for devolving certain health functions to the Assembly and its Executive will unnecessarily upset the present satisfactory arrangements. I would remind your Lordships that there is, and has been for many years, a completely separate health administration in Scotland. When the reform was carded out in the 1970s, it was carried out in Scotland by legislation a year before it was in England and Wales; and we in Scotland have a single-tier system of health boards instead of the two-tier system in England and Wales. The systems are different, but because the Ministers concerned are both in the same Cabinet and in the same Government, co-ordination ensures that they exist together without difficulties
474
for the medical professions. The Home and Health Department of the Scottish Office, which has existed for many years and deals with all the health matters now devolved to the Secretary of State for Scotland, has a very good relationship with, for example, the British Medical Association's Scottish office in Edinburgh, and they are in close co-operation almost daily on health subjects.
Provided the system can continue on the same basis, then the medical professions, I understand, are not worried; but they are concerned about the way in which the functions are to be split by the Bill. Some functions are to be retained by the Secretary of State. They are also worried about the allocation of finance that may be made by the Assembly when it is set up. This is a natural worry. They think that the Assembly, because it has the discretion, might decide to give more priority to roads or education, for example, than has been given in the past, and that health would then be one of the subjects which would suffer. I give this background because I think it is right that the Government should be aware, if they are not already, of this general anxiety among the medical professions, particularly in Scotland.
The Bill proposes that certain matters in the health field should remain with the Secretary of State. For example, medical schools are not to be devolved, nor is the registration of doctors and nor are the disciplinary procedures of the medical profession through the General Medical Council. Another matter not devolved is the control of drugs, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to earlier today. That is for the obvious reason of a need for uniformity. The control of drugs throughout the United Kingdom is clearly something which ought to be centrally arranged. In addition to those subjects, the British Medical Association is concerned that family planning, too, should be organised on the basis of a uniform system throughout the country, and they feel especially about the next Amendment, on abortion.
In dealing with this Amendment on family planning the representatives of the medical profession have made it clear that they think that the law and practice should be the same throughout the

475
United Kingdom, and that this Bill should not produce a situation where it could be changed on one side of the Border, and then be different. I must make it clear that we are not discussing the merits or de-merits of these subjects, whether or not one is opposed to family planning in principle or on religious grounds and is dissatisfied with the present state of the law. I am not suggesting that those matters should be debated this evening, and I hope they will not be. The question I am putting is whether, whatever the state of the law is at any particular time, it should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. Where family planning is concerned it has now become so.
In the 1972 Scottish Health Act, provisions were included which resulted in the same system as that operating South of the Border. This, from the health point of view, is important. It means that the doctors and surgeons know that the same law and regulations apply in each country. They also know what methods prevail and what can be prescribed under the systems both North and South of the Border, because they have been brought into line. Particularly on questions of medical advice being needed, and for example, the question of women seeking medical advice before taking the pill, these are matters where it could be inappropriate and dangerous in some cases if medical advice is not sought and if it is not absolutely clear that it is the same throughout the country. I would only draw attention to the information which came out in the last three or four months: it has been discovered that women over the age of about 35 are more at risk in taking the pill than people had thought at first and, therefore, are in need, no doubt, of medical advice. These are matters which need to be uniform throughout the country.
The medical professions have made it clear that they would regard it as retrograde if the present situation were changed in such a way that it could lead to different legislation and practices being adopted on one side of the Border from the other, when we have now reached a situation where it is accepted that they are the same whether or not one happens to agree with the legislation. I hope the Government will sympathetically consider this Amendment.
Lord PLATT: I should like to say just two or three words in favour of this Amendment. If I may take the second Amendment, it will save me making two speeches. I think that it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if people knew that they would get a different kind of consideration or treatment on the two sides of the Border, as Lord Campbell has just said. You could imagine people going backwards and forwards crossing the Border because they wanted a certain type of treatment or because they thought that the rules in one country were more favourable to their particular case (whatever it was) than the rules of the other country. I hope that the Government will support this Amendment. It seems to me to be a quite harmless one in the sense that I do not think that the future of the devolution of Scotland is going to depend on these two Amendments. From that point of view, I should have thought it was fairly non-political and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord KIRKHILL: Let me say, first of all, that the Government are not insensitive to the views of the medical profession as conveyed to your Lordships' Committee this evening but the Government do see the position in a rather different light. As this is the first of a number of Amendments relating to the devolution of health matters, it might be of assistance to the Committee if I outline the concepts underlying these devolved matters in general and the devolution of health matters in particular. I shall do so as briefly as I can.
The Government's view is that as much responsibility as possible—as we keep saying—should bedevolved totheAssembly in areas where decisions primarily affect the people living in Scotland; in line with this view, the Government have decided that health matters are eminently suitable for devolution. This carries with it responsibility for the whole of the NHS in Scotland. Lord Campbell pointed out that the only reservations from the broad field of matters related to health are the control of drugs, medicinal products and biological substances. The reason for this reservation, as he has properly pointed out, is that these matters are subject to comprehensive clinical control, both nationally and internationally. It is obviously sensible that these should stand reserved. In

477
the Government's view, this consideration does not apply to the provision of any of those services, including family planning and abortion, given within the ambit of the National Health Service, or of private medicine, in Scotland.
It cannot be a proper consideration for reservation that a matter is particularly sensitive, is concerned with life and death or has moral or social implications. If that were so, it would be appropriate to reserve many other matters, some also in the health field, such as genetic counselling, screening for congenital abnormalities and the provision of life-support systems for patients with terminal illness. It is the Government's view that family planning and, indeed, abortion are aspects of health care and provision and should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly with all other aspects of the subject.
Family planning is specifically mentioned in the description of the health group, because there might otherwise be doubt whether it was in fact included in the group, since it is not necessarily part of the prevention, treatment or alleviation of disease or illness. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might—might it not ?—have the curious effect that the Scottish Executive could continue to provide a family planning service as part of its health services but only to those in ill health.
Apart from the general considerations I have outlined, there are strong practical reasons why family planning should be devolved. Family planning services, again as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out, were brought within the National Health Service under Section 8 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. As the noble Lord well knows—we would agree about this at least—it has greatly helped the development of our comprehensive approach to obstetric, gynaecological and maternity services generally.
In the Government's view, it would be a complete negation of the aim of comprehensive planning for health services if the duty to provide family planning services was to be separated out from other duties in relation to primary health care and specialist hospitals services. I will give your Lordships an example. A Scottish
478
Secretary would, for example, find himself constrained in the advice he could give on the development of services in the maternity field generally; and a Committee of the Assembly, looking at " preventive " health in the context of maternity services, would be handicapped when it came to consider the contribution of family planning services.
There are also likely to be practical difficulties if the family planning service is separated out from the rest of the Health Service, particularly in the field of financial control. The essence of the problem is that, if the Secretary of State has statutory responsibilities, then Parliament and not the Scottish Assembly would have to provide funds, although the amount to be paid could only be assessed in terms of the cost of individual items of service. Sterilisation, for example, which is included in family planning, is sometimes provided in the course of an operation for other purposes. This illustrates, in the Government's view, the sort of difficulty that could occur in separating out costs.
The main objections, however, are not the practical ones. They are, as I said earlier, that family planning is a matter which affects people in Scotland in a way that is closely hound up with other health matters which are to be devolved. For that reason, and for the other reasons I have mentioned, the Government would be unable to accept this Amendment.
9.33 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: It really does seem to be rather surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should mention fairly obscure medical maladies earlier in his speech as examples of the sort of things, which, thank God£ apply to relatively few people in this country. However, there are a great many women. Perhaps I might suggest to him that it is most important not to create a situation—I am sure this Amendment is designed to avoid it—in which we have girls rushing over the Border in one direction or the other in order to get special services that are available on one side yet not on the other. It is very important that such a situation is not created, and it seems to me that a lot of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord were specially contrived to justify a situation which is really unjustifiable.

479
Many of your Lordships may not have had the privilege that I have had, of being in Malta many times in the 1950s and 1940s—time does drift by—where we had great difficulties, because the family planning arrangements in Malta, as your Lordships may imagine, were vastly different from those in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will not expect me to go into any detail. I do not suppose that the same difference would occur between Scotland and England, but one cannot be sure.
I suggest that in this kind of area we do not want to look to the obscure diseases. We want to look to the practical effects which the noble Lord mentioned. I strongly suggest that this is one area in which the kind of Amendment which my noble friend is proposing is wholly sensible. So far as I can see, he has not taken his proposals further and put the items concerned into Part II of the Schedule, which would make a bit of a difference. It seems to me that the way in which he has done it is entirely sensible. The common approach to these two very vital problems, which affect just about half the population of both countries, strikes the right balance, which is not so with the way in which the Bill at present puts it.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Before the noble Lord replies, I would support my noble friend very strongly in this matter. One has to look at it from the point of view of a population which is not involved in technical details of health and illness. One looks back on the change in the abortion law, when there was a flood of people coming from Europe. Are we to see the same situation if we leave abortion and family planning in the Bill ? My noble friend is proposing here that we take out something which is of national and not local interest, and it must not be confused with technical details of medical science.
Lord KIRKHILL: On the question of family planning, I do not quite take the drift of the argument about the cross-Border traffic. I am not really quite with your Lordships on that point. Perhaps some elucidation will help me.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I wish to talk to the next Amendment, which is specifically dealing with abortion on which I feel very strongly, and I feel less strongly on the matter of family planning as a devolved matter. But what is happening is that noble Lords are trying to talk to both Amendments, and it would certainly make me happier if we talked about one at a time.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether I might say, as the question of abortion has been raised, that that is the subject of the next Amendment, on which the medical professions feel very strongly. So that unless any other Members of your Lordships' Committee want to speak on family planning, I propose to—
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I just make one point in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said about sterilisation? If the Scots—those robust characters—abolished it, then you would have all the men chasing South of the Border to take advantage of the position here.
Lord KIRKHILL: The question of sterilisation is surely a medical, clinical judgment on the part of a specialist.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: May I suggest that we have probably been through this before? Although your Lordships were probably not old enough to remember, we had a whole lot of trouble in the old days with Gretna Green.
Lord KIRKHILL: May I just say all that I really want to say, in order to complete my brief remarks? The Government have many times reiterated that they believe the Scottish Assembly will be made up of mature citizens, publicly elected, who will be fully entitled to assume the full burden of health responsibilities within the devolved field.
Lord BALERNO: Has it been considered by the Government that the Assembly might, indeed, be rather glad to be relieved of having to make decisions on this contentious point, and that relieving the Assembly of having to debate it will enable it to get on with other matters? There is one point which I should like to make on what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said. So far as disease is involved in family planning—and that

481
would include genetic disease—it would be covered quite satisfactorily by the earlier part of that paragraph: "Prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease". Although, therefore, the treatment of disease might result in a form of family planning, it would not be excluded from the health matters which would be dealt with by the Assembly and one could still leave family planning outside the scope of the Assembly.
Lord KIRKHILL: My point was that it is not necessarily part of the treatment and prevention of illness or disease.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I hope that we shall not go into the subject itself, otherwise we shall have a long debate. The medical profession, not only in Scotland but also in the country as a whole, are worried about this. That is the point which we must register. Under the present legislation, people in Scotland, England and Wales can come to doctors working in the National Health Service for advice and methods. It is important that doctors should know exactly where they stand and what they can do. The health administration needs to know what is free and what has to be prescribed. From the medical profession's point of view it is important that there should be uniformity throughout the country.
482
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has produced objections. I did not attempt to suggest that in itself this Amendment was complete. However, if the principle were to be accepted, I am sure that necessary Amendments could be made to other parts of the Bill. However, it is the medical side of the subject which could be separated if the noble Lord and the Government accept the principle, in the same way as other medical subjects have been separated and are to be retained by central Government and the Secretary of State instead of devolved.
The purpose of moving the Amendment has been to emphasise to the Government the strong feeling of the medical profession, and the importance, if the Bill is not changed, of keeping this matter under review and making sure that central Government step in, if necessary, if it looks as though the administration of this subject medically on one side of the Border is starting to differ greatly from the other. I am grateful to my noble friends who have joined me in supporting this Amendment, which I do not intend to press. However, may I give notice that unless there is a satisfactory answer from the Government on my next Amendment, I intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 171.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.44 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 48, line 3, leave out ("Abortion.").
The noble Lord said: This is the subject about which the British Medical Association feel very strongly. They believe that it should be a reserved subject. They feel that it is important that the law should be the same throughout the United Kingdom. Again, whatever views one may hold on the present state of the law on abortion, or whether one's view is that there should be no abortion at all, from a religious or other point of view, most people agree that the law should be the same and that one should try to ensure that it is the same throughout the United Kingdom. It is on this Amendment that there could be the kind of movement from one country to another which has happened in recent years when there have been relaxations in the law on abortion in different areas of the world.
If the law were to be different on one side of the Border from the other, it would provoke difficulties. The medical profession are very much aware of this fact. If it should become easier, or appear to be easier, to obtain abortions in Scotland, there is no doubt that there would be a definite movement in terms of visits to Scotland for the sole purpose of getting abortions. Recent history has shown that this can happen. There would then be pressure on the related medical services on that side of the Border compared with the other. Of course the situation could be reversed if the change were in the other direction. This would be most unsatisfactory for the medical profession, who will expect to be able to work in any part of the United Kingdom at different times. Gynaecologists working in Northumberland or Dumfriesshire would find anomalies on their doorsteps.
In this Amendment we are not discussing whether abortion should or should not be carried out at all, or the present state of the law; we are discussing the important point that the law should be the same, and if any changes are made in the future they should be made for the whole of the United Kingdom and therefore this should be a reserved subject. I advocate this very strongly, having made it clear that I have received many representations
484
from the medical profession about it, and I hope the Government will agree. I beg to move.
9.47 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: In speaking to this Amendment I have no intention either—and I think it would be quite wrong here—of touching on the case for or against abortion. It is enough to say that it is a sensitive issue, on which people have strongly held views and one which is even often used for political ends, as we have seen quite recently. I simply want to look at the situation in which we could find ourselves if abortion were to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly—or even, eventually, to an English or a Welsh Assembly, if that is the course upon which we are embarked—and, as could easily happen, that group of representatives were to make a decision that put legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and other noble Lords have said, in one country out of step with that in another.
There may at present be differences in practice across the country but the law on abortion applies uniformly to the whole of the United Kingdom. The law says, basically, that abortion is a criminal offence except in certain exempted circumstances. The point is that the law affecting abortion is criminal law and if abortion becomes a devolved matter there is the real danger that we shall have the position that what is a criminal offence in one part of the United Kingdom will not be an offence in another. And we shall no longer be able to alter that position in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. Make no mistake, the Scottish Assembly may well change the law on abortion, if it is able to do so. Similarly, as a result of continuing attempts to get a consensus on the subject, there will be an attempt to change it in England.
Where will that leave us'? Well, since there will be no restrictions on the movement of people from one health board area to another, as has been made quite clear, the Bill will create conditions for just the sort of cross-Border traffic in abortions that we once had when women were being dumped into Heathrow from overseas to take advantage of our more liberal laws on abortion. In that situation, how would the Scottish Assembly or the United

485
Kingdom Parliament feel about applying its own law?
Let us suppose that stiffer legislation were to be introduced into Scotland. Would, say, Newcastle become the abortion centre of the United Kingdom as Scottish women crossed the Border to obtain an abortion? Would Newcastle become a sort of post-coital version of Gretna Green ? And if it did, how would the English hospital react, faced with the possibility of being prosecuted if it were to carry out an abortion on a woman from North of the Border? It may be that it would have to introduce identification tests to make sure that, in spite of her accent, she was a bona fide English woman. That is not so outlandish as it may seem.
Then, what are the implications so far as public expenditure is concerned ? Will the English and Welsh taxpayers be expected to bear the cost of Scottish abortions, or vice versa? It is by no means an impossibility that the matter of abortion will be raised in the Scottish Assembly. It has always been an issue of considerable concern in Scotland. After all, it was a Scottish Member of the other place, Mr. David Steel, who introduced a Private Member's Bill to create a uniform law on abortion for the United Kingdom as a whole. As was pointed out by my right honourable friend the Member for The Wrekin in another place, no one fears that in Scotland and in England there will be separate legislation on the possibility of obtaining an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy, but abortion is a very different matter.
Given what the Bill proposes, consider that the Members of the Scottish Assembly do decide to change the law on abortion and what the result will be. Since the issue of abortion, though still one that attracts comment, discussion and open controversy, is the subject of law that applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, I fail to understand—and so, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has confirmed, do the doctors—why this situation is to be changed by opening the door to the possibility of there being created separate abortion laws North and South of the Border. I cannot see that the ability of either the Scots or the English and Welsh to change their law on abortion
486
unilaterally can lead to anything but potential difficulty and unnecessary and serious problems, in the other countries as well as in the country making the change.
What of the exchange of ideas and the close co-operation that exists over this field at the moment? They will be lost, to the disadvantage of all the countries concerned. Noble Lords will be aware of the fact that this matter was discussed at some length in Committee in another place, and considerable disquiet was expressed by many honourable Members, both those in favour of and those against abortion. In the outcome the Amendment excluding abortion as a devolved matter was defeated by 162 votes to 179. I believe the result might have been different had the issue, which was actually described by one of the Ministers involved as essentially a moral issue, been left to a free vote.
I believe that we should not treat abortion as though it were an issue not very different from other matters specified in Schedule 10. I cannot with the best will in the world agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkhill on this matter. The point is that it is different. We are on very delicate ground here; to de-stabilise the present legal situation on an issue so sensitive and serious as this, and to create the possibility of there being different laws on abortion applying in Scotland and in England and Wales, is extremely dangerous and could have disastrous consequences.
I would ask my noble friend Lord Kirk-hill if he would refer this matter back to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and remove abortion as a devolved matter from the Bill in view of these considerations, if I believed this would have the effect I desire. My record in your Lordships' House is not one of disloyalty to the Government, but I have to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, decides to divide the Committee on this Amendment I shall go with him into the Division Lobby, and I hope other noble Lords, irrespective of their views on abortion as such, will perceive the dangers in making it a devolved matter and will join us there.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. I agree with everything

487
that has been said both by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. I can also speak for my noble friend Lord Selkirk. He has put down an Amendment on the subject, No. 255. Unfortunately, he had to go to Scotland tonight, but he asked me if I would move his Amendment if No. 172 was not spoken to. Amendment No. 172 has been spoken to most effectively by both the noble Lords, and I would say that I hope very much that it will be pressed to a Division and that we vote on this.
It is nothing to do with morals but relates to the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. My noble friend Lord Selkirk was very anxious that abortion should be taken out of this particular group because he says it is not health; what is involved in abortion is criminal law. It is quite wrong to put it in a group headed " health ", in which criminal matters are not involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said, criminal matters are involved in this subject. I hope that we may ask the Government to accept the Amendment. If they do not accept it, we shall vote.
9.56 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: I have listened attentively to the remarks made so far in this brief debate. I do not think that I do noble Lords an injustice if I suggest that the fears expressed thus far by those who have spoken, and who seek that this matter stand reserved, boil down, first, to the undesirability of having different legal provisions on either side of the Border, and, secondly, to the prospect of an undesirable cross-Border traffic of those seeking easier abortions. On the question of having different laws, I make two points. I direct my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, at least, to the remarks that I am about to make. In the Government's view, this is what legislative devolution is all about. It would surely be a nonsense to exclude from devolution a field of law just because it raises a number of difficult issues.
It would, in my view, be insulting to suggest that the elected representatives of Scotland would not be responsible enough to deal with these issues and that they
488
would fail to give proper weight to the feelings of the people of Scotland—which on this matter might, as I think the Committee should accept, be different from those of the people of England. Indeed, consultations last year on the William Benyon Abortion Amendment Bill revealed a perceptible difference of attitude in Scotland to abortion law reform. I give that as an example. Scottish opinion was less in favour than English opinion of making abortion more readily available where the grounds are predominantly social. It could be argued that, in the light of those views, any future Great Britain Act should contain within it special provisions relating to Scotland to meet special needs and views which have been expressed clearly. That is exactly why the Government propose a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.
Lord PLATT: No doctor is compelled to perform an abortion or take any part in it if he has moral objections to doing so. There are big differences in England between one town and another. Those differences are quite conspicuous. But that does not affect the fact that we should have the same law—not necessarily the same judgment by individuals—for all parts of the country.
Lord KIRKHILL: I take that point. I acknowledge that there are differences between the cities in Scotland. These differences are known and remarked upon. However, I intended to speak on a somewhat different nuance of law. As many noble Lords will know, outside the framework of the Abortion Act 1967 the legal position in Scotland is governed by Scots common law. Criminal provisions related to the subject in Scotland form a part of the criminal law, which is a devolved subject.
If I could turn now to the question of cross-Border traffic, which was specifically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davies, the fears that have been expressed are without considerable foundation. There is cross-Border traffic even now, because, in practical terms, the ability to obtain an abortion within the National Health Service—the noble Lord, Lord Platt touched on the point—rests to a great extent on the judgment and

489
attitudes of individual clinicians. One thousand women from Scotland seek abortions in the private sector in England annually because of difficulty in obtaining an abortion under the National Health Service in certain parts of Scotland.
If, after devolution, the criteria for abortion changed to the extent of encouraging cross-Border traffic, this would, of course, be confined to the private sector. There is no question, now or after devolution, of National Health Service patients themselves determining, without reference to the usual medical channels, where they will be treated. It will not, therefore, be possible to cross the Border at will to take advantage of a National Health Service specialist hospital service.
If abortion were reserved, new Westminster legislation on abortion might contain far-reaching provisions governing the private sector. However, it might be quite unnecessary to implement these provisions in Scotland because the private sector in abortion is negligible and has not led to abuse so far as can be judged. Therefore, in the Government's view it is better to leave these matters to the Scottish Assembly, which will be in the best position to judge the needs of Scotland, rather than ourselves determining those issues here at Westminster level.
Quite apart from these considerations, I should like briefly to touch on the fact that there are a number of practical effects of any decision to reserve abortion. To these I should draw your Lordships' attention. To reserve abortion would mean that the subject would remain within the Secretary of State's purview and that he would retain the powers in the Abortion Act 1967 as well as any new powers that Westminster legislation might at some time confer upon him. He would, therefore, be left with this one very small area of responsibility within the wide field of health. Of course, I made a similar point when we were talking about family planning.
The Government's view is that if abortion stands reserved, it would lead to a significant fragmentation of the present abortion service because abortions are normally carried out in National Health Service hospitals, in gynaecological wards
490
and as part of a wider health provision. The Government lay great stress on the maintenance of that integrated health provision which has certainly been much in evidence since the implementation of the 1972 Act.
I do not think that I should say more. I have explained the Government's view, as clearly as I can. The Government will not be in a position to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I understand from a previous remark which he made in the earlier debate on family planning that his view on this particular Amendment is of most serious weight. I therefore await his further action.
Baroness GAITSKELL: Having listened to the debate and been very interested because it happens to be one of the subjects in which I am ordinarily interested, is it not up to a devolved Scottish Assembly to bring into its legislation the more liberal attitudes of the English Parliament ? Does it not come down to that ? I was very sympathetic with what my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis said but, having thought again, I realise that it is not just a question of people coming across the Border—it rests on the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has given the impression that the Scots are not so advanced and not so liberal as we are about family planning.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: As I have just been referred to I should like to intervene. I think that I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, come into the Chamber some minutes ago, but it sounds as if she has not understood anything I have been saying. I referred to family planning as regards the last Amendment. I have not said a word about family planning in relation to this Amendment. What I was saying was the exact opposite of what she has just said. I said that at present the law on abortion is the same in Scotland as it is in England and Wales and that that was a situation which the medical professions wished to preserve. I was not saying that one side of the Border was more liberal, or whatever the noble Baroness would say, than the other. In fact, I have done everything possible to avoid discussing the actual merits or demerits of the subject.
Baroness GAITSKELL: The noble Lord has not said it, but he has implied it. There is no doubt that that is what he implied.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am sorry to take up another 30 seconds, but if that implication has been understood by the noble Baroness I must immediately say that no such implication was intended.
10.5 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said has really reinforced many of our doubts and anxieties about the Bill. He has really said that there are different views in England and different views in Scotland, and the Scottish Assembly has the right to interpret those views and make such laws as it thinks fit. That may be a justifiable argument on matters such as roads or education, but on matters like abortion we shall get into a state of Box and Cox if different laws apply in England from those that apply in Scotland on what is, by all reasoning, a very sensitive issue.
The noble Lord said that legislative devolution is about legislative differences between the two countries. With the greatest of respect, that is no argument at all on a subject such as this. From what he said, I should have thought that the only inference which can be bound to be drawn is that in time—and not necessarily immediately—we shall get different laws in Scotland appertaining to abortion from those in England. It cannot be said that that could be in any way desirable. Therefore, we are bound to get a cross-flow of traffic. If the noble Lord will not reconsider this and is adamant that this is the Government's view and that it is right that we should have these differences of view between the two countries, I would certainly support my noble friend.
Lord KIRKHILL: As he always does, the noble Earl has made a substantial point, but I think I should remind him that I said at least two things which are germane to the point he has just made. I said, as he would know, that there are already differences between the laws of Scotland and England, and that there is already a difference as that applies to abortion. I made those two points and I think that it is pertinent to emphasise them now.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I always believe that in matters of human rights it is probably best to remove human rights as far from a local situation as possible, which is one of the reasons why we subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in most cases of human rights there is a consensus as to what the rights are. Abortion is a highly complex subject, and because it is a highly complex subject it is a very proper matter for a devolved Assembly to decide. It is not a subject where we can all get up and swear that all civilised opinion is on our side, whichever view we take. There are very different views on it.
I think that the Government are being a little disingenuous. I think that they are playing down the anomalies that will arise. I believe that there will be more anomalies than they say there will be. However, that is one of the prices that we have to pay and it is something which an Assembly should decide for itself.
Lord BALERNO: I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, implied that in Scotland we were more retarded in cur views on abortion than is the case in England. The noble Baroness must have heard the abortion debates in this House, but perhaps I could remind her that what really sparked off the Abortion Bill of Mr. Steel was the work done by Professor Baird in Aberdeen. Professor Baird, who was Professor of Gynaecology, was very upset—as were others in the profession—by the number of kitchen-table abortions that were taking place. Therefore, against the law and committing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, would describe, a criminal act, he went ahead with the abortions and challenged the law on the point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said the common law of Scotland is in many ways substantially different from that of England. In Scotland—I say this with diffidence in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the Solicitor-General—all prosecutions of a criminal nature are instigated by the Crown and can only be put into effect if the Crown decides to prosecute. As I said, I am no expert in the law and stand to be corrected by the two experts here, but I believe that the law of Scotland is to the effect that the

493
procurator fiscal, or the Lord Advocate's office, do not prosecute unless it is in the public interest that a prosecution should take place, so that our basic approach to the breaking of the abortion laws is substantially different from that in England.
It is true that in Scotland we have had considerable differences. While one might say that Aberdeen, in the North-East of Scotland, has gone pro-abortion, the experts in Glasgow are very anti-abortion. I think it would not be a bad idea that this battle of the medical experts should be fought out in Scotland and not decided by Westminster. There is every possibility that the abortion law might be changed. There is a strong campaign for that. If it was to result in a change in Westminster which was against the wishes of Scotland, there would be considerable trouble. Therefore, I must say, however reluctantly, that I strongly support the Government in this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The effect of the law North and South of the Border at present is the same, and the medical profession are satisfied with the uniformity that it provides. What the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said in reply to this Amendment was not reassuring, because he indicated that a recent poll had shown some slight difference in views towards this subject, and that for that reason the Assembly ought to be enabled to change the law, if necessary.
I was hoping to get an assurance of the other kind; that is, that if it was devolved there would still be some check, with the Secretary of State perhaps using his override powers, or some other way, to try to make sure that the law was none the less kept basically the same. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, who took part in the debate—himself a very eminent member of the medical profession—pointed out that under the present laws no doctor need carry out an abortion
against his conscience. But even that might be altered North or South of the Border if the abortion laws were put into a situation where they could be changed in Scotland, or changed in England and Wales, and then become different.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, talking about the private facilities for abortion, said that these were smaller in Scotland at the moment. The whole point is that if the laws were to change, these situations would change, and I do not regard a situation that exists at the moment as necessarily a reason for excusing the Government's case.
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps the noble Lord misunderstood the point I made or perhaps I put it badly, so I will re-phrase it yet again. The recourse to private sector abortion in Scotland is minimal. That is the point I was making.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble Lord has put it in different words. I am saying that, whatever the present situation is, it does not mean that it will not be quite different in five or 10 years if there were a change of law, meaning then a demand North of the Border. That situation could change quickly and several noble Lords have referred to the influx of people to an area when the abortion laws have been relaxed in that area, so we know from experience that it can happen. I do not want to get on to the subject-matter, and we have debated the question of the uniformity of the law which is the point we are making in the Amendment. I ask noble Lords in all parts of the Committee to agree with me to press the Amendment.
10.16 p.m.
On Question Whether the said Amendment (No. 172) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 51; Not-Contents 47.

Mansfield, E.

Northchurch, B.

Stamp, L.

Minto, E.

Platt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Robbins, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Sandford, L.

Vaizey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENT

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balerno, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Byers, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Torphichen, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Vernon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Perth, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.24 p.m.
[Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
The Duke of ATHOLL The Duke of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 48, line 8, after (" Education ") insert (" except for the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture").
The noble Duke said: We now turn to the somewhat calmer waters of Scottish agricultural colleges. This is a very big jump from the previous subject we were discussing, but that is the way the Bill is arranged, and I am afraid that we just have to face it. Perhaps I should explain that agricultural education in Scotland is provided at three levels. First, there are the universities which are not to be devolved to the Scottish Executive, and which will remain a United Kingdom function administered by the University Grants Committee.
Secondly, there are diploma courses provided by the East, North and West Colleges of Agriculture and these are the subject of this Amendment. Thirdly, agricultural education provided by the regional authorities at the City and Guilds or certificate level. This form of agricultural education is at present mainly funded and administered by the Scottish Education Department, the functions of
496
which will be transferred virtually in toto to the Scottish Assembly. As the Bill stands at the moment two of the possible forms of agricultural education will be devolved and one will not.
There are three Scottish Colleges of Agriculture. They are in Aberdeen, Auchincruive (Ayrshire), and Edinburgh, and they are responsible for formal further education courses mainly at the diploma level, advisory work among farmers and growers, including EEC applications, and a research and development programme to provide the needs of agriculture and horticulture. All these activities are financed by direct grants from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and the research and development programme is approved under the Rothschild principle of customers and contractor arrangements. The colleges are directed by independent boards of governors comprising representatives of many sectors of the farming industry, the universities, regional councils and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. Their work is co-ordinated by the Council of the Scottish Agricultural Colleges which formulate common policies to ensure the most effective use of resources. I think there is a universal feeling that the colleges do an excellent job of work and that there will be great disappointment among the farming community in Scotland if their functions are in any way altered.
A comprehensive range of disciplines has to be covered by the staff at the colleges—soil, biological and chemical scientists, veterinary surgeons, architects, engineers, husbandry specialists, general agricultural and horticultural advisers and economists. The system operates by applying the right combination of expertise to work over the whole spectrum of the colleges' responsibilities in the most economical way. The present facilities and resources, including the full range of professionally qualified staff, have been built up since the beginning of the present century around the education work for which the collegeswere initiallyestablished. This work stimulates, and is itself stimulated by, the research and development functions and the specialist and general advisory work.
The point I am trying to make is that the colleges are concerned not only with agriculture but also with general advice to the farming community. Each college has special and intimate links with a university and contributes to the university undergraduate and post-graduate work, while from each university the whole range of its staff expertise can be tapped to serve the needs of agriculture and horticulture. This system, known throughout the world as the Scottish system, is unique within the United Kingdom, although it is akin to the arrangements found in North America where advisory services are also provided from the teaching centres of the agricultural colleges and universities.
This system has stood the test of time and is eminently suited to the structure, needs and geographical scatter of the agricultural industry in Scotland. As indicated above, the responsibility for funding the advisory service and the research and development programme lies with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. In view of the close integration of formal education with these activities, the DAFS is also responsible for financing the diploma level courses. The colleges take the realistic view that agricultural education cannot be split from the main stream of education and that this function of the colleges will de jure be devolved to the Scottish Assembly, whereas the functions of agricultural extension and research and development will remain the funding responsibility of the Secretary of State.
On the assumption, therefore, that this dichotomy will prevail following the enactment of the Scotland Bill the colleges are anxious to explore possible ways of ensuring that the totality and integration of their manifold activities will not be jeopardised and that a mechanism can be devised which will cause the minimum of administrative disruption. The colleges of course appreciate that most of the problems inherent in the situation can be negotiated and, hopefully, satisfactorily resolved only between the Executive of the Scottish Assembly and the colleges, but they would appreciate a statement from the Government on how they see their functions and financing after devolution. They and the agricultural community in Scotland hope they will not suffer from a tug-o'-war between the Assembly, with its educational functions, and the Secretary of State, to whom agriculture will to a large extent be left, and also research and development.
I am somewhat disappointed that this debate has come on so late in the evening, because I had very much hoped, in order to allay the fears of much of the farming community in Scotland, that the Government statement might be reported in the agricultural Press. There is fear in Scotland among farmers that the work of the colleges may be affected. What they have done and what they do is greatly appreciated, and I think anyone who has had experience of them would agree that it would be a great pity if their functions, powers or finances were jeopardised by this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord TANLAW: I wonder if I could ask the noble Duke a question on a point of information. I thought I heard him say that he would make no distinction between education and the work carried on by an agricultural college. If he did say that, perhaps he would confirm it, because I make a very great distinction. Agriculture is a technical subject, and a technical skill is not to be confused with what I would refer to as conventional education. If the noble Duke is trying to create a link between agricultural colleges and what is the normal, conventional type of education, I would strongly disagree with him; but perhaps he could confirm that.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I am very pleased that the noble Lord would dis-

499
agree. All I hope I said was that the trustees of the colleges take the realistic view that agricultural education cannot be split from the main stream of education. Therefore, in moving this Amendment I wanted to make it clear that I had no intention of pushing it to a Division. All I want is a statement from the Government on how they view the future functions and financing of the Scottish agricultural colleges.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like very briefly to support this. I have had quite a lot of help from the Edinburgh College, and I know the other two colleges quite well. There are also subsidiary colleges: one is in St. Boswells and one is in Ayr, which are part of the West of Scotland and the East of Scotland Colleges of Agriculture. One of the things they are charged with at the moment is vetting the schemes put forward by farmers who are joining what is called the farm horticultural development service of the EEC. The EEC, as I think many people know, are providing grants on quite a generous scale for those farmers who are included in the FHD service. That is one of the jobs that the agricultural colleges are taking on.
I say this because it shows that there is an international aspect of this which I think is very important indeed, and I think it would be a very great pity if there were any restrictions put on the influence, the work and the skills of these colleges, not only for the people who are pupils but for those of us who are no longer, alas!, pupils but are ancient farmers who, however, get great help and assistance from these colleges. I hope that the Government will be able to give us an assurance that under this devolution scheme these colleges will be as well off as they are today; indeed, I should like to see them better off. My general feeling is that I do not think it is a good idea to divide education.
I am very keen that the universities which are not going to be devolved should not be devolved, and I think there is everything to be said for the colleges of agriculture not being devolved, either; but, as the noble Duke said, that is not something he is going to press. I should like to know what the Government feel about this, because these colleges give
500
an extremely important and very good service to agriculture.
10.35 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: I want to support strongly the Amendment of my noble friend. For the benefit of those English Lords who are in the Committee today, I would draw attention to the fact that agriculture is a reserved subject. I think I would be right in presuming that, when the Bill goes through, the present Scottish Department of Agriculture will continue more or less as it is, under the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is not a devolved subject. Therefore, things pertaining to agriculture should not be devolved. It is a very good thing that agriculture is not devolved, because so much of the higher policy of agriculture must be the same for England, Scotland and Wales. To make it different when we are dealing with the Common Market problems—and they are very acute in agriculture—would be quite absurd. It is right that agriculture should not be devolved but should be reserved.
Why should we have a division in agricultural education? This seems to me to be completely and absolutely absurd. Again, for the benefit of noble Lords who are not acquainted with the set-up in Scotland, we rather think that the agricultural education, in so far as it has had a great deal of freedom from State interference, is rather better than the set-up existing in England; although I would admit that in the last 20 years the English standards have improved.
But the colleges of agriculture and the university departments of agriculture are invariably under the same roof or the same groupings of roofs. The professor of agriculture, who is the traditional head of the Department —and we used to have only one professor of agriculture at each of the three universities which dealt in agriculture—was normally also the principal of the college of agriculture. In my day—and, I think, still—for economy of staff a certain number of the classes taught are attended by graduate students and students working for their diplomas in agriculture; that is, students from the colleges. To attempt to separate them, as the Bill does, is going to load to a very considerable administrative muddle. The colleges and the university departments of agriculture are working so closely with each other

501
that, if we were to try to pull them apart (as this Bill is bound to do in the end, putting the one under the Secretary of State, virtually, and the other under the Chief Secretary of the Assembly), there is bound to be friction. It will be quite unavoidable. Therefore, I most strongly support my noble friend and hope your Lordships will forgive me for not voting with the Government this time.
Lord BURTON: Farming in both Scotland and in England, I should like to agree with all that has been said just now about the colleges. They are extremely fine bodies and most useful, and I think it quite wrong that they should have their administration altered when an alteration may, in any way, jeopardise their efficiency. When you have an efficient body running well, I cannot understand why, for political reasons—and only political reasons, so far as I can see—you should want to change it. I am very disappointed that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said he only wants a statement. I was hoping he would press this Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, says that agriculture is to be reserved, so why have a division between agriculture and agricultural colleges? But education is to be devolved and an agricultural college is concerned with education; so there is to be a division—
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: But surely education in agriculture is devolved —up to university.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I get to my second sentence, I shall be saying that. There has to be a division somewhere and I would urge upon the Committee the view which the noble Duke has put forward; that is, that agricultural colleges cannot be split from the mainstream of the educational system. The noble Duke has explained—and I hope I shall be forgiven for reiterating very briefly—that the three Scottish agricultural colleges have three broad functional areas. First, they provide facilities for research and development work in agriculture. Secondly, they provide advisory services on agriculture; and, thirdly, they provide higher education in agriculture up to diploma level. From what has been said already, your Lordships will appreciate
502
that economic and research aspects of agriculture are not to be devolved, because agriculture is itself reserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said; and because the colleges' development and advisory functions are directly related to those aspects, the Government take the view that these functions should not be devolved.
The Bill achieves that, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has recognised, by silence: silence means that they are reserved. As the noble Duke has recognised and made plain, his Amendment would affect only the education functions of the colleges and the effect of the Amendment would be to reserve responsibility for these functions. But responsibility is devolved to the Assembly for all education matters, as the noble Baroness said, up to but not including university level. That is under Group 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 10. The Government see no reason why agricultural education should not also be devolved up to that level. That would enable the Scottish Administration to provide for a coherent system of agricultural education from the technical level right through to higher diploma level. I gather from what the noble Baroness said that she was regarding the agricultural colleges as akin to universities; but it may be that there is a closer analogy with other colleges—for example, those of further education—which are to be wholly devolved. Again, as I think the noble Duke recognised, some agricultural education is at present provided by local authorities and the Amendment would not prevent responsibility for this from being devolved. In these circumstances, it would surely be anomalous for the education functions of the colleges to be reserved.
In the Government's view, it is quite inconceivable that the Scottish Administration will not recognise, as have noble Lords already, the merits of the present system. There is nothing to suggest that the present arrangements will not continue after devolution. There is certainly nothing in the provisions of the Scotland Bill to prevent or inhibit this in any way.
The noble Duke hoped to hear something from the Government about financing, and it is right that I should respond to that. It may be thought by some that the fact that the funds for the colleges will come from both the central Government and the devolved Administration is no bar

503
to the continuation of the present integrated arrangements. The North and East Scottish colleges of agriculture are closely associated with the Agriculture Departments of the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh respectively. At the present time, the colleges and universities receive funds from different sources—the Research Councils, the University Grants Committee and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has been found perfectly possible to accommodate funding from three sources within the present administrative and financial arrangements of the colleges. After devolution, there will be four sources; the Secretary of State will continue to contribute funds for the development and advisory functions as he does at present and the Scottish Secretary will fund agricultural education.
I am sure the noble Duke is not suggesting that this one additional source of finance will present any sudden or insuperable problems, and it certainly does not justify reserving agricultural education in the colleges and separating it from the mainstream of the educational system, to which he has referred. It may be that, after devolution, certain adjustments to the colleges' articles of association will have to be considered, so that, for instance, the appointment of the boards of governors can reflect the respective responsibilities of the Scottish Executive and the Government, but I do not envisage that this will create any problems.
For these reasons, the Government believe it to be right that the educational functions of the agricultural colleges should be devolved. The splitting of responsibility for the colleges between different Administrations does not mean that the present integrated arrangements should not continue after devolution. Indeed, as I have suggested, there will be strong pressures that they should continue. The Scotland Bill does nothing to prevent this. The fact that funds will come from one additional source should not, as I have indicated, in practice prove any great difficulty. In the light of this explanation of the Government's thinking, I hope that the noble Duke will feel satisfied that that is the statement that he wanted and will withdraw his Amendment.
10.46 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am sure
504
that what the noble and learned Lord has said will go some way to comfort those who have agricultural interests, and I declare such an interest myself. So far as the educational side of the colleges of agriculture is concerned, I think that everybody will be satisfied that they will continue in their present role, which is a supremely important one in Scottish agriculture, because the very high level of expertise which we enjoy in Scotland is, in large part, due to the colleges of agriculture and to what they have achieved over a considerable number of years.
Where the disquiet arises is in regard to the other roles which the colleges assume; that is, the advisory work among farmers and the farming community, and the research and development programme. All those who have any interest in agriculture will know of the superb service which is provided by the colleges of agriculture, particularly so far as advisory work is concerned, and this embraces a very wide spectrum, from matters of what I might call a purely scientific nature, right up to questions which are pure economics. All these and mixed questions can be taken on board by the colleges of agriculture—and are, indeed, taken on board—and comprehensive and well worked-out answers are provided to some extremely difficult and far-reaching questions.
The company with which I am concerned, which has, for social and agricultural purposes, deliberately bought a property in the West of Scotland in a difficult agricultural area, has to my certain knowledge received a great deal of excellent advice from the West of Scotland College of Agriculture. What some noble Lords, and I myself, are concerned about is that there should be no upheaval if this Bill becomes an Act. If parts of the financing of the work of the colleges are removed, so to speak, and put under the umbrella of the Scottish Executive, which must happen, one hopes very much that channels will be worked out, so that not only is there no upheaval but there may even be some improvements.
So, to that extent, while I am sure that my noble kinsman is right not to press this Amendment—it is not the kind of Amendment which one presses in this House—I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord might have gone a little further in his statement about what I might call this economic

505
transitional period between the end of the responsibility of the Government at Westminster, and the taking on of the responsibility by the Scottish Executive and, no doubt, the Scottish Assembly.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I feel guilty that I did not declare an interest at the start of my speech, in that not only do I farm in Scotland, but I also make use of the quite excellent services provided by the East of Scotland College of Agriculture. They have very successfully done the whole of my application for an EEC farm and horticultural scheme grant, for which I should like to thank them very much.
This debate must be unique for one reason: that my noble friend Lord Burton praised a Government-financed organisation, which I can never remember happening before! It shows how good the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture are and how important it is that they should continue to operate satisfactorily during the time that devolution takes place, if it does, and afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, felt that agricultural colleges were not really educative in the normal sense of the word.
Lord TANLAW: May I correct a point? I may have misled the noble Duke into mixing up mainstreameducation with what I would call higher education. In my remarks I was, of course, referring to higher education.
The Duke of ATHOLL: May I thank the noble Lord for the useful distinction which he has drawn, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. A great deal of the work of the agricultural colleges is educative and is much to be commended. The universities will not be devolved. Since colleges of agriculture are very closely allied to universities, it seems to be a pity that they should be devolved.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has explained that in future the colleges of agriculture will have four sources of funds. Their present three sources of funds cause difficulties at times. Therefore, I feel that there may be a temptation for the Scottish Assembly, which is not going to have unlimited funds because it will receive a block grant from Westminster, to decide that
506
one of the areas in which economies could be made would be its share of the costs of the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture. I had very much hoped that we should hear something from the noble and learned Lord about how the split between their educational facilities and their advisory and research and development facilities is to be made. Unlike my noble kinsman, I am not at all worried about the two latter facilities, because I see little reason why Westminster should alter its attitude towards the Scottish Colleges of Agriculture. So far as I know, although they have not had unlimited money, they have had quite sufficient to enable them satisfactorily to pursue their programmes and to continue with their advisory and research and development services.
I wish that the noble and learned Lord would say a little more about how the Government visualise the splitting of the functions. It seems to me that this will raise difficulties. Since there is probably nothing further that the noble and learned Lord can say at the moment, I am wondering whether he might agree that I should put down the same Amendment at Report stage—not because I wish to divide the House, but in order to allow him to make a further statement on the subject and also to say why he is so confident that the Scottish Assembly will continue to give sufficient funds to agricultural colleges to enable them to continue their educational work in the way they do at the moment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall write to the noble Duke.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that statement and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord POLWARTH Lord POLWARTH moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 48, line 8, leave out ("the arts").
The noble Lord said: This is an extremely late hour to start to discuss a completely different subject—one which I believe is of crucial importance with regard to the future of the arts in Scotland. Nevertheless, a number of noble Lords with considerable experience in this field have come long distances or have put off other important engagements in order to

507
be here to speak to it. I assume, therefore, that noble Lords will wish to debate this Amendment, even though it may result in some further delay in the hour of our rising.
I am encouraged to speak by the support given to my Amendment by my noble friend Lord Gibson, who is a very distinguished former Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain. Whatever other differences there may be on the subject-matter of this Amendment, namely, to delete the arts from the devolved subjects in Schedule 10, on one thing I think there will be general agreement, namely, the high standard of excellence in the arts in general in Scotland at present. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is no longer on the Front Bench opposite as he has done a great deal, both officially and personally, to support and encourage the arts in Scotland.
This state of affairs owes a great deal to the positive and enlightened policy of the Arts Council of Great Britain and of the Scottish Arts Council, both in encouragement and in financial support. I should point out to your Lordships that the Scottish Arts Council, while being a committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, with its members appointed by that Arts Council, of course after close consultation with Scottish Office Ministers, has almost complete autonomy as to how it allots its available funds to the different arts institutions in Scotland. What is more, the Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council is invariably a member of the main Arts Council of Great Britain, and I am delighted that the present incumbent of that office, the Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, my noble kinsman Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is able to be with us here tonight.
These arrangements ensure a very close working relationship between the countries in the field of the arts. I believe it is also a mutually advantageous arrangement. Scotland certainly benefits in many ways, not least in the fact that over the last two or three years we have received something like 12 per cent. of the total funds available to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is certainly more than our Goschen formula share. I venture to believe that the Arts Council of Great Britain benefits from the Scottish input to it.
I believe that the criterion for the devolved subjects in the Schedule is broadly those which affect people, and only those people, resident in Scotland, with certain exceptions where there are needs of common policy. I accept that there is a certain field of the arts that is purely local, and that is as it should be, and is healthy. Nevertheless, I suggest that in contrast to these activities, when it comes to the major artistic organisations—and I think particularly of the major musical and dramatic institutions, where I must declare an interest as Chairman of the Scottish National Orchestra while equally saying that anything I say tonight is an expression of personal opinion more than anything else—I do not think they should be classified as being of purely local concern. Art knows no bounds, whether of frontier, of nationality or of race.
Indeed, it builds bridges across those frontiers and all of our major musical and dramatic companies fall into that category: the Scottish National Orchestra, Scottish opera, Scottish ballet, the Scottish Chamber Group—all these give concerts in England and make tours abroad (I was this morning giving a Press conference about a tour we are to make to Eastern Europe this autumn) and they draw players, soloists and conductors from all over the world. They are of national and indeed of international calibre and I would venture, if I may say so in the presence of my noble friend Lord Robbins, that in many respects the field of the major arts in Scotland closely resembles the field of the universities which, with I think very good reason, have been excluded from the devolved subjects in the Schedule. Apart from transcending these boundaries, these bodies need a common standard, a coherent pattern over the United Kingdom, and their influence is not related solely to those who live and work in Scotland. When we go abroad with these bodies we are as much ambassadors for British as we are for Scottish culture, if not more so.
What I am particularly concerned about is this—and this is where we seek enlightenment tonight: What will happen if the arts remain in the devolved category? Presumably they become the responsibility, financially and otherwise, of the Assembly. What, then, will be the role

509
of the Scottish Arts Council? Presumably, as a committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain and under its sponsorship, and ultimately under the Department of Education and Science, it will simply cease to exist, because its function will have been transferred elsewhere. Then I suppose it will be for the Assembly to decide how it wants to deal with the arts and support for them. It could, although it need not, set up a new independent Scottish Arts Council, which might or night not in due course seek a Royal Charter, such as the Arts Council of Great Britain has at present. Presumably, the First Secretary would have power to appoint the members of such a body, and of course the Assembly would have to provide the funds out of its block grant. That is something that could happen; but of course it would be open, I assume, to the Assembly to make any arrangements it liked.
I believe it is absolutely vital that there should be some independent body as a buffer between the State and the arts, as there is at present for the whole country, a body with freedom to allocate the available resources completely independently. I believe the members of such a body should be as independently appointed as possible, on the basis of the broadest general experience in the arts field and not just as representatives of particular interests or bodies. In this respect it interests me to see in one of the Schedules that in the case of two other bodies of, I would submit, comparable importance and general activity, there is provision that while their functions are devolved one function is not; namely, the power to recommend appointment, in the case of the National Library of Scotland, of the trustees, and, in the case of one of the Mental Health Acts, of commissioners under that Act. Power to recommend appointments to Her Majesty under those two Acts is reserved and is not devolved, and I submit there could be a very good case for doing similarly with appointments to any body handling the arts in Scotland.
There is then the question of the amount of resources to be made available. What guarantee is there that an Assembly would feel inclined to maintain the present, I think, very generous level of support coming from the Arts Council? I am not for a moment suggesting that the majority of Members of an Assembly would be
510
philistines; I sincerely hope not. But my experience of the support for the national arts organisations by local authorities in Scotland in recent years is hardly encouraging. Up until six years ago the Scottish National Orchestra used to receive about one-third of its income from the local authorities in Scotland, the other two-thirds coming from the Arts Council and from our own takings at the box office and otherwise. Over that six years the local authority proportion has fallen, in this coming year, to around 17 per cent., leaving the other two partners to meet the rest. This they have done to date, but the matter is reaching somewhere near a crisis point.
I feel that this attitude on the part of local authorities does not augur well for the possible attitude of an Assembly faced with a whole lot of demands to meet, demands which I think will be quite insatiable, from the block funds available to it. I have doubts as to the priority an Assembly will place on the arts in this situation. As a result, all the major bodies in the arts in Scotland are walking a tightrope financially, and one step wrong could bring any one of them down. Any sudden change in the method of support could indeed trigger this off, even a delay of a few months in deciding where the support is to come from after the present Arts Council support has ceased.
All in all, I believe it will be in the interest of the major arts in Scotland, at any rate, that they should continue under the aegis of the present Arts Council set-up. It would not inhibit the local authorities from doing their share, as, hopefully, they will increasingly do, but it would give an assurance of standards of independence, and, above all, of continuity and a reasonably assured source of finance. It would insure against yet more uncertainty and cause for anxiety about their future for those many very dedicated performers in these bodies, for whom today life is uncertain enough in any case.
That is why we put down this Amendment. I realise that it is not necessarily perfect. It may be too all-embracing to achieve the purpose that we seek. However, we very much look forward to hearing the Government's thinking on how the arts will fare and be dealt with under an Assembly. If necessary, we may feel inclined to come back with another

511
Amendment if this one is not suitable. I beg to move.
11.6 p.m.
Lord GIBSON: I put my name to this Amendment because I sincerely believe that the changes proposed in the administration of the arts—the public subsidising of the arts on a United Kingdom basis—would seriously damage the arts, especially in Scotland.
Let me say straight away that if I had not been Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain for five years I think that I should have taken a different view. I am sure that I should have said to myself: "If we are to have devolution, whatever its merits, the case for devolution must rest on national identity. National identity is based largely on culture. If ever there was a subject to be devolved it would be the cultural life of the nation ". However, practical experience over five years has convinced me that in working practice it would be a mistake. Let me quickly say that I am no longer Chairman of the Arts Council. Therefore I speak in a purely private capacity.
I am convinced by experience that the Scots already have devolution of the arts. They have more. They have the best of both worlds. They have not near, but complete, autonomy in the spending of their slice of the United Kingdom arts cake. They also have full and active participation in the development of the United Kingdom arts policy. They make a fine contribution. They have three seats on the Arts Council of Great Britain. They are immensely valuable members of that body.
It is true one could argue that if we have separate arts councils in Scotland, Wales and England—what I said about Scotland applies equally to Wales—we could have a formal association between the three bodies. United Kingdom arts matters could be discussed there. But what a bore that would be. It would involve another tier of administration, when the present set-up, which is simpler, works so well.
The fact is that it is not possible to distinguish in advance between those matters that have purely Scottish, purely Welsh and purely English relevance, and
512
those matters that have a United Kingdom relevance. Many is the time that I have sat at the Arts Council when the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has put up his hand and said "Stop. What you say has a relevance for Scotland. This is Scotland's point of view about this". We had not thought of it before. We developed a policy which took their interests into account.
The same has happened constantly with the Welsh Arts Council. Both bodies are committees, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, under the constitution of the Arts Council of Great Britain. In practice, they work independently but are a part of our deliberations in London. The present system works to the advantage of us all. It recognises that when these matters are indivisible we need to be together.
So the only reason for making a change is to give the Scottish Assembly a role and to make it responsible for funding the arts in Scotland. Will its funding of the arts in Scotland improve matters for the arts in Scotland? Let us suppose that we take aside not only the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who has already given his opinion, but almost any of the people in charge of arts organisations in Scotland and ask them whether they think that they will get more or less money from an Assembly than they get from Westminster, through the Arts Council of Great Britain and whether they think that they will get more or less political interference. I suspect that most of them, if not all of them, will say that they feel safer on both counts with Westminster, where the Arts Council of Great Britain has been for nearly 30 years a buffer between Government and politicians and the arts, and the convention and habit has grown up of the arts being protected from continual interference, but with accountability to Parliament.
Nowhere in the world where the arts receive public funds on the scale which they do here are they administered with so little political interference coupled with accountability. This system is admired and envied by artists throughout the world.
As regards pure finance, the Scottish Arts Council, like the Arts Council of Great Britain, benefits from the fact that the United Kingdom arts budget is a

513
minute proportion of the United Kingdom total expenditure and yet it is accorded great importance and has a Minister to plead its cause. Ministers of both Governments have been by no means unsuccessful. Both Conservative and Labour Governments, although neither has done as much as many of us who are involved in the arts would like to have been done, have recognised at least that the small amounts which can be saved by cutting the arts do damage out of all proportion to their size.
The same is not true—as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was saying as regards Scotland—of the local authorities up and down the country. Compared with the national Governments, the local authorities have inevitably done badly. I think that that is understandable and I do not altogether blame them. A grant to the arts from a hard-pressed local authority all too easily is seen as meaning a cut in something else—some other cherished project. I think that it is very likely that the Assembly will, in this respect—and in this respect only—resemble a local authority more than the national Government.
A Scottish Arts Council receiving a grant from an Assembly trying to allocate its expenditure is much more likely to resemble a local authority assisted arts organisation than a national Government assisted one, not necessarily because of any deficiency in the Scottish Assembly, but because of its financial limitations. Therefore, for those reasons, while recognising the desire to devolve a cultural responsibility, I believe that if the arts are devolved, damage will be done. Moreover, it is foolish to break up a system which gives the arts in Scotland the best of both worlds and which devolution of the arts would fail to maintain.
Lord ROBBINS: I am tempted to make a brief interposition in this debate in view of my admiration for the Government's decision not to devolve the administration—in so far as it arises from governmental sources—of the universities. The universities are to remain under the control of the University Grants' Committee. I understand that that arrangement is one which commends itself to a very substantial proportion of the people engaged in university teaching in Scotland. I sometimes wonder whether we appreciate how lucky we have been, or perhaps how
514
clever we have been, to have evolved the method of administration which is typified by the University Grants' Committee. There can be no doubt at all that it is the envy of academics all over the world. In an extraordinarily sensitive area of cultural life it has insulated university teaching from the vagaries of politics.
The question which naturally arises in my mind is: What is the difference between the culture inculcated by university teaching and the culture which is fostered by the present arrangements with regard t o the arts? What is the difference constitutionally between the position of the University Grants' Committee and the position of the Arts Council? I have no interest in this matter; I have simply been a suppliant from the Arts Council, but I have never sat on any of its committees. We do not know how lucky we are in having evolved this way of fostering the finest manifestations of culture. Why should there be a difference, therefore, in the mode of administration chosen for the Government fostering of the arts in the United Kingdom and the Government fostering of the universities?
11.16 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I believe that it is my first duty in taking part in this debate to declare my interest as chairman of the Scottish Arts Council and a member of the Arts Council of Great Britain, a body incorporated under Royal Charter. During the last week or two I have asked several people who have made an undoubted personal contribution to the field of the arts in Scotland what they think about this Amendment which we are presently discussing. In almost every case they have said something like the following: "But surely you must realise that the urge for devolution in Scotland is in essence a cultural one. To withdraw the arts from the devolution Bill is to destroy the very spirit of this whole measure. It is quite unthinkable".
"Good", I have said, "That is fine. Now, in what way do you think the Assembly will choose to support the arts? Will it be by a body at arm's length, such as the Scottish Arts Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain, which are presently set up, or do you think they may prefer to appoint their own elected members to a committee to take charge of the

515
distribution of the money that they decide to spend on the arts? Further, do you think that the arts will rank high or low in their priorities?" "Oh", they said, "Well, that is difficult. That could be very difficult indeed. We are bound to admit that the Assembly might find that the arts might have to occupy a peripheral place ". I mention that because I believe that it is evidence of the contradiction of heart and mind that bothers many people concerned with the arts in Scotland today.
I should have liked to say a little about the appreciation that all of us concerned with the arts feel for the actions of Parliament in the last 30 or 35 years, since the formation of the Arts Council of Great Britain, in making available funds to provide in Scotland such a vast new variety and quality of artistic fare which is now available. I think that at this time I should not expand on that. I should like to go straight on to the question of the existing degree of devolution, which has been referred to. I would confirm that from my own experience it is a fact that, despite a perusal of the Charter of the Arts Council of Great Britain, indicating the belief that provision for the arts is not yet devolved, your Lordships should be quite clear that for many years all decisions on revenue support for the arts have been, de facto, wholly devolved to Scotland, with of course the acceptance of the Arts Council of Great Britain of this state of affairs. So much for the present.
I should like to suggest two key considerations which I believe should underline any scheme of provision for the arts in future. In order of ultimate importance they are, first, freedom of expression; secondly, stable and adequate financial support. I suggested earlier that there might be two possible arrangements for support of the arts which an Assembly might contemplate. The first being direct control by appointing a committee either wholly composed of elected Assembly Members or perhaps partly of elected Members and partly complemented by lay or expert members.
The practice of co-opting lay members to democratically elected bodies, whether those bodies are advisory or executive, does not meet with much favour at either district or regional local authority level,
516
for understandable reasons. It seems quite possible that this view could prevail in the Assembly with the result that there could be the dangers of a directly political arts policy, and of the enormous and hitherto unprecedented fundamental changes of personnel and policy after each election. I believe that that arrangement would be quite contrary to the interests of the arts, the artists, and the consuming public in Scotland.
The second alternative would appear to be for the Assembly to contemplate appointing a separate body at arm's length from itself, perhaps under Royal Charter as at present. The advantage of this arrangement is that it enables the Minister of the day responsible for the arts to consider support of the arts on a longterm basis, and to represent these needs to Parliament on this basis, leaving responsibility for individual day-to-day support decisions and priorities to the Arts Council. Ministers are not required to give instant reactions on questions of Arts Council grants. This has enabled individual writers, artists, directors of performing companies, to act and to plan their programmes without regular major changes in policy affecting their long-term thinking. It allows a period of time within which the development of the arts in this country, and consequently the policy of the Arts Council, can be digested and considered at leisure by Parliament.
The annual grant-in-aid decisions by Government, usually endorsed by Parliament, to the Arts Council of Great Britain are made after such reflection. It seems to me absolutely vital that this separation of responsibility for the day-to-day decisions on the one hand by the Arts Council, and of long-term funding on the other by the Government, must continue. The Council itself has a similar understanding with its principal clients. It grant aids on a momentum of performance and audience support. The Arts Council does not cut off grants, or presume to criticise on the basis of a single failure. I suggest that this devolution of responsibility on a basis of accumulated experience is in accordance with the best modern precepts of participation and devolved decision making.
I must briefly refer to a criticism, or a cliché, which is frequently offered to me as a certainty; that is, that the Arts

517
Council is not accountable. I must say that of course the Arts Council is accountable directly to Parliament. It produces three annual reports for Scotland, England, and Wales. The Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, and his chief accounting officer, have appeared before now in front of the Public Accounts Committee to answer questions on its stewardship, and it may be, although it is not exactly for me to say, that the standard of stewardship compares respectfully with that of any other organisations funded with taxpayers' money.
The second key factor I referred to was adequacy of cash provision. I think this has been dealt with by the two noble Lords who spoke previously, and I think I should pass over that except to say that the key question is what priority the Assembly, in the event of the devolution of the arts taking place, will give to the arts. What we should like to see is an adequate priority, and of course a recognition of the realities of the funding of the arts. A major performing company must plan and engage artists three years ahead. They have now to do that on their own responsibility because the Arts Council is not allowed to make any commitment further than the existing financial year. This is not sensible, and let us hope that in any further provision the triennial planning arrangement, incorporated for a very short time and since dropped, will be introduced.
Finally, I would emphasise the imperative need for a British body. It can hardly be emphasised too strongly that a British body, and in a stronger form than that of a consultative committee, is necessary. Almost all the performing companies in Scotland are wholly Scottish, in domicile and for the most part in membership, but they are British, and frequently international in performance and reputation. The arts are not of a narrow parochial importance. The arts are international and the Scottish Arts Council does what it can do to ensure that the fresh air of international discussion and exchange enliven the arts in Scotland.
Much of this is foreseen and planned, either within the Arts Council of Great Britain or in consultation with them. A forum in which members and officers
518
of the Scottish Arts Council and their English and Welsh opposite numbers can frequently meet and argue out problems is vital, however much they may decide in the future, as they have frequently done in the past, to pursue separate policies in respect of individual domestic needs in their respective countries.
11.27 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: At the risk of being repetitive, though making no apologies, I have to start again by saying that the Government's policy throughout the Bill is to devolve as much as possible in respect of matters which are primarily the concern of the people living in Scotland. Many of the arts form an important part of Scotland's heritage and history and the arts are therefore a leading example of a field of activities that is appropriate for devolution. The arts do not exist in isolation and cannot easily be separated from other cultural and recreative activities, or indeed from education itself. I believe that to single out the arts for reservation from all the other matters in Group 3 would have a harmful effect on the development of a coherent policy in these important fields.
The arts are devolved by virtue of the entry in Group 3 of Part I of Schedule 10. This means that the existing administrative and statutory functions exercised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in relation to the arts in Scotland will he transferred to the Scottish Secretary, and the devolved Administration will be free to develop its own policy in the field. It will be open to the Scottish Administration to develop its own policy for financial support for the arts; to determine how much of the block fund should be devoted to the arts; and to decide whether to dispense financial support directly itself or whether to operate through the existing Arts Council of Great Britain and its subsidiary, the Scottish Arts Council, or to devise some new machinery for that purpose.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for having a chat with me this afternoon and talking about some of the points he was proposing to raise. I do not share his fears that the Scottish Assembly, representing the Scottish people, will be any less proud of Scotland's famous cultural institutions, its national orchestra,

519
its ballet and its chamber music than we are at Westminster. I am sure the Members of the Scottish Assembly will be just as keen as they are today, or even more so, to cherish those products of Scottish imagination and initiative when they are working side by side with Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, asked about devolving the universities and implied satisfaction that the universities were not being devolved. The case for not devolving the universities is based on very different criteria because the 45 universities of Great Britain operate as part of a coherent whole and economies of scale and the need to get value for money point to the need for the allocation of resources on a Great Britain basis, and we do not think that there is quite the same case so far as the Arts Council is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, also gave me prior notice of the general line he intended to take tonight. It may be worth emphasising that there is no reason at all why after devolution the Scottish Arts Council should not continue to function in Scotland, especially since we are all so proud of the excellent job that the Scottish Arts Council does in Scotland at the moment. Would it not be invidious to pick out the Scottish Arts Council for special treatment when there are similar special cases in other fields? It would not make for a coherent Administration if all such bodies, or fields of activities, were selected as perhaps being too important or too sensitive to be left to the Scots. Surely we have sufficient faith in the Scottish Assembly that is being elected, that it will have good sense, and that it will show the discrimination that we are used to having from the Scottish people.
A point was also made by a noble Lord on the appointments. The appointments made by the Crown are reserved because there is no direct access to the Crown by the Scottish Administration, and the Arts Council appointments are not Crown appointments. I think that towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was slightly mistaken when he said that there has been some devolvement to the Scottish Arts Council now. In fact, the financial support for the arts has been
520
decentralised from Great Britain through the Scottish Arts Council, but it is not devolved, because it is still accountable to Westminster through the Arts Council of Great Britain.
We know that there are some problems. The Arts Council of Great Britain is a Royal Charter body. If the Scottish Administration decide to continue to operate through the existing machinery, then the Arts Council of Great Britain can consider, in consultation with them, what adjustments should be made to its Charter in order to meet the Administration's wishes. It is envisaged that on the Westminster pattern the Arts Council of Great Britain would then apply to the Privy Council for any amendments necessary to its constitution. Although under the terms of the Bill the Scottish Assembly can legislate to amend the Charter itself, it can only do it after it has obtained Crown consent first through its Secretary of State.
I know that there is concern among noble Lords who have spoken tonight that they may not get as generous treatment as they think they ought to have, and perhaps as many of us think they ought to have, from their local authorities. However, I know local authorities in other parts of Great Britain who are nothing like as generous to the arts in their areas as many of us would wish them to be. The Scottish local authorities are not alone in this. They are not all good at it, and we could wish that those who are not so good might get better. Perhaps when we have a Scottish Assembly and a Scottish Administration, with a real Scottish pride in the arts of their country, they may do even better than they do now. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
11.34 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: One thing puzzles me here. There is one Department which has a "full" Minister representing it in this Chamber. I refer to the Minister for the Arts. I wonder why he is not present. I wonder why the Minister for the Arts, who should know more about this issue from the ministerial point of view, is not here to give his testimony.
I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness is not other than excellent, as she always is, and there is no suggestion

521
that she has not properly prepared and delivered the Government brief. But it could he that the Minister for the Arts, with his special knowledge of all that is behind this matter, would not recommend this. Is his absence a sign that he does not altogether agree with this? Is it that, in his experience as the Minister for the Arts over the past 12 months, together with the experience of his predecessors, he feels that it would be better for the Scottish arts if they were left out of the Bill? The arguments have been very strongly made that what is proposed will injure the present set-up.
I imagine that there is no suggestion from any quarter that the Scots are not capable, through their Assembly or any other body, of looking after these matters with the same sympathy and understanding that exists now. This arrangement has worked for a number of years. Why disband it or risk weakening it? I was waiting for the noble Baroness possibly to explain why the Minister for the Arts is not here. There is very likely a very good reason. But I should have thought that, on a matter as important as this, concerned with the cultural aspects of the Bill, one Minister to commend it to the Committee, if his experience would so allow, would be the Minister for the Arts. We do not have many "full" Ministers here, and I find it rather puzzling that the Minister is not here to give his testimony.
Baroness STEDMAN: Will the noble Lord accept that the Ministers responsible for all the services that are being devolved have been in discussions about these matters at all levels? There has been complete consultation. We cannot array all the Ministers. We are concerned in this Bill with every subject the Government deals with, and we cannot have here all the Ministers to answer for their own particular piece. We hope that the team who are dealing with the Scotland Bill are doing so adequately so far as your Lordships are concerned. It is no reflection on the Scottish Arts Council, or on the attitude of the Minister for the Arts that he is not here tonight. He is only one of many Ministers, and we have not got the others here. There have been no complaints that the other Ministers have not been here.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Certainly in another place it would be deemed
522
to be very remiss if a Minister with departmental responsibility was not present. It is clear from the Marshalled List that the arts are going to be discussed at some length. Noble Lords who are submitting these Amendments are very authoritative, and I would think, on the sheer grounds of Parliamentary procedure as it should be operated, on those very few occasions when we have a Minister from your Lordships' House that he would have been here to deal with it. But there it is. We have had an explanation. I do not think it is a very good one, but at least it is an explanation.
Lord BROWN: May I point out that there are 80 Ministers in another place and a handful here. Perhaps the noble Lord has forgotten that.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Might I make it clear—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: The question of Parliamentary procedure was referred to. The procedure in this House is perfectly understood. We have a team of Ministers who answer on this Bill and, if I may say so, I think it is rather disparaging of the noble Lord not to accept the explanation which my noble friend Lady Stedman has given. We are all perfectly content with the way she dealt with it in all parts of the Committee, and I think it is rather a pity that this kind of disparaging remark should have been made. I think it would be very much better if we left it now and had an answer as to whether or not this Amendment is to be moved.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Baroness chastises me. That is her privilege and I shall take it, because it is from an authoritative source that the chastisement comes. But in terms of Parliamentary procedure I repeat that we have very few recognised Departmental Ministers in this House. The Minister for the Arts over the last 12 months happens to be one of them. I feel, whatever the convention has been in the past and whether or not I get the support of my noble friends on the Front Bench—I am not being disparaging to the noble Baroness; I am one of her great fans—that there are very few Departmental Ministers and when an issue concerning their Department is raised, I should have thought, if it was

523
not good manners, at least it would be good sense to put in an appearance.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: I agree that Scotland has its own culture, but in one very short sentence—and my knowledge of Scottish history is not enormous, but I know it quite well—I would have said it was worth bearing in mind particularly in relation to this Amendment that what one might call the astonishing cultural explosion in Scotland of all the arts and all learning which took place in Scotland, took place after the Union.
The Earl of PERTH: I go along with many other noble Lords in feeling that one cannot separate the arts in Scotland from the Assembly. There is one question of fact which I should like to ask, and it is this: if it is decided by the Government and by others that the arts should be a part of the devolved issue, is it possible for the Scottish Arts Council to receive a Royal Charter so that it can operate on its own and then make arrangements with the Arts Council of—as I suppose it still is—Great Britain?
Baroness STEDMAN: It is a matter for consultation between the Scottish Arts Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain and it is for them to negotiate and make the necessary arrangements.
Lord POLWARTH: There is very little that I can say except first to thank noble Lords who have mostly spoken in support of my theme here and to congratulate the noble Baroness for so ably and charmingly assuming the combined role of a Scottish Office Minister and a Minister for Education. I thought she discharged it admirably within the limitations imposed on any Member of the Government Front Bench in telling us anything about what will happen in relation to any of the devolved subjects after this Bill is passed. Because, of course, they cannot tell us anything about what will happen: they can only express pious hopes and leave it to the supposed good sense of the Assembly. This is the difficulty we are up against.
I must confess I am somewhat disappointed that the points have not been
524
taken more seriously, particularly with regard to the dangers with which I think we may be faced in the changeover, especially in regard to the arts. If this goes ahead, I think this question of changeover is vitally important; there must be no hiatus, particularly in the financial support, or there will be dire trouble. I sincerely hope that the Government may be able to find some way to follow up the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Perth regarding some continuing arrangement with the present Arts Council set-up, rather than a complete break and the institution of something completely new. With that, I would not wish to press my Amendment on your Lordships tonight, though at a later stage some of us may seek perhaps a slightly different or modified formula to look after some of our remaining fears. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.