HL Deb 20 December 1983 vol 446 cc622-38

4.59 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that, if in the judgment of the Scottish Tourist Board the time required to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State and to consult with the British Tourist Authority as aforesaid would be likely to result in the opportunity to carry on the particular activity under consideration being lost or prejudiced to the detriment of the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Scotland, then the Scottish Tourist Board may proceed without such consent and after such consultation with the British Tourist Authority as they consider administratively desirable and necessary to carry on that particular activity.").

The noble and learned Lord said: One returns, as one often does in your Lordships' House, from the tragedy of Greenock to the minor problems of the overseas promotion of Scottish tourism with a horrible sense of anti-climax. However, this a very simple, uncomplicated amendment, and one which I am sure will commend itself to the Minister, who is nothing if not an altogether reasonable man.

The purpose of the amendment, as appears on the face of it, is to reduce to prospects of possible bureaucratic delays, and perhaps inefficiency, in seeking the consent of the Secretary of State and carrying out the necessary consultations with the British Tourist Authority. One can well understand that in the ordinary run of case no doubt the matter of seeking consent and carrying out consultation can be completed without difficulty, but from what I have heard said in public about the working of the Scottish Tourist Board I get the impression that there may be situations in which it is essential to reach a quick decision on the activity proposed to be embarked upon overseas. I assume that the Minister would be anxious to reduce such delays and will have investigated—and I hope that he can tell us something about it—the situations which may arise where the Scottish Tourist Board has to seek this consent and to have carried out by the Secretary of State the consultations with the British Tourist Authority.

Of course, one does not want to be rude about the Scottish Office, but, like delays in the law to which reference has been made, the Scottish Office does not always work with extraordinary speed. I do not need to dwell on that. However, from the point of view of the practical working of the Scottish Tourist Board, I am a little anxious about this matter, because there must often be situations in which speed of decision is vital and contacts are made with people overseas, and opportunities for the development of Scottish tourism may be lost. If that is wrong, I should like to be assured by the Minister—and I think that the Committee would wish to be assured by the Minister—that there is no danger of anything of this sort arising from time to time.

That is all there is to the amendment. It seeks to give the Scottish Tourist Board a discretion to exercise its judgment, whether it needs to go through the process required of it by the Bill as it at present stands or, in special circumstances, to dispense with the need either for seeking the consent or not dispensing entirely with the need for consultation with the tourist authority, but rather consulting direct with the authority instead of through the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that this amendment will commend itself to the Minister, who I know is a reasonable man and dislikes the unacceptable face of bureaucracy just as much as do the rest of us. So I await with interest his acceptance of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

This is an interesting amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could use it to give us some indication of a number of points, including the nature of the consultation that is likely to take place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has raised the question of the time taken to carry out these consultations. It would be interesting if the noble Lord the Minister of State has any information as to how long a consultation on specific promotions will take. I agree that long-term plans will be laid periodically. For instance, can he tell us how many people in St. Andrew's House, or wherever else in Edinburgh they happen to be in the Scottish Civil Service, deal exclusively or largely with the Scottish Tourist Board, and what sort of relationship they have with the Scottish Tourist Board? I can understand that an amendment as long as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, would, from my experience, not be acceptable to a Government department. However, I am sure that the sentiment in it is something that I should be only too happy to support.

Even in these circumstances, and given the well-worn formula that the Minister accepts it in principle but will take it away to look at the wording again, perhaps we could get that concession from him. He has been rather tardy about giving us concessions so far. Perhaps he could also, if not immediately then before the end of the debate, give us some idea of the other points—namely, the nature of the consultation and the number of Scottish civil servants actually involved with tourism.

Lord Gray of Contin

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for the way in which he moved this amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the very reasonable attitude which he takes to it. The amendment would permit the Scottish Tourist Board in certain circumstances to disregard the obligation imposed on it under subsection (2) of Clause 1 to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before promoting Scotland overseas.

The amendment provides that, where the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or lead to the loss of promotion opportunities, it may proceed without Secretary of State approval, undertaking only such consultations with the British Tourist Authority as it thinks fit.

The amendment as drafted would negate the purposes of subsection (2). The Scottish Tourist Board. which in the Bill as currently drafted is under an obligation to obtain the Secretary of State's consent, would by this amendment itself be entitled to determine whether to disregard the consent requirement. There would be little point in imposing a statutory obligation on a body if that body were itself entitled to decide when to disregard it. I think, therefore, that as a matter of logic I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.

I recognise, however, that in tabling this amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, may be concerned to probe the mechanics of the consent procedure and to guard against any possibility that the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals could get silted up in time-consuming bureaucratic procedures. I wholly share the concern of the noble and learned Lord in this matter. But I assure the Committee again, as I did at Second Reading, that the consent procedure is designed as a final check on the compatibility of the Scottish Tourist Board's and the British Tourist Authority's programmes, not as an exhaustive appraisal of the tourism merits of the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals.

It may be helpful to refer to the comments made during debate on the provision in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, on which this subsection is modelled. Then, too, concern was expressed that the requirement on local authorities and area tourist boards to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to their overseas promotion proposals would lead to delay and possibly to the loss of promotion opportunities. This is exactly what the noble and learned Lord has in mind. Experience has since confirmed our view that such proposals can be dealt with expeditiously—they are, in fact. processed within a matter of days of their receipt by my department. And a special accelerated procedure for urgent applications ensures that there is no loss of promotion opportunities. The procedure applying to the approval of the Scottish Tourist Board's programme should be no more complex or time-consuming than that followed in relation to the approval of local authorities' proposals. Indeed, since the Scottish Tourist Board will, each year, be submitting its programme of overseas promotions for the year ahead for the Secretary of State's approval well in advance of the promotion season, there is little risk of delay resulting from the consent requirement. May I emphasise, too, that, since we fully expect continued close liaison between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board on overseas promotion proposals, the Secretary of State's separate consultations with the British Tourist Authority should normally be only a fail-safe measure.

I do not believe, however, that there will be any delay by the British Tourist Authority in considering any request for views. I am confident that the BTA will play its full part promptly in the consent procedure. The BTA has a statutory right to advise any Minister on tourism matters in Great Britain, and is expert in this advisory function. I hope that I have been able to allay the noble and learned Lord's concern about the impact of the consent provision in the Scottish Tourist Board's plans, and I hope that he may feel that he can withdraw his amendment.

Before I sit down, however, I should like to deal with the two points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The number of civil servants engaged in tourism in the particular functions to which he referred amount to four and a half. From his own ministerial experience, he will realise that it is not unusual to cut civil servants in two when giving such figures. I have touched upon the nature of consultation briefly already: it is to ensure that there is not a duplication between the projects entered into by the British Tourist Authority and those of the Scottish Tourist Board, and the nature of the consultation can be from a wide-ranging consultation to merely ascertaining the dates on which certain projects are to take place.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

Can the noble Lord tell us whether, in consequence of this Bill, the number of civil servants devoted to Scottish tourism will rise, and whether perhaps they will get to a round figure from now on?

Lord Gray of Contin

There is no likelihood of any rise in the number of civil servants overall. Whether there may from time to time be justification for a slight apportionment to bring them up to five, or down to four, will remain to be seen, but it is not likely that there will be any major change. The Scottish Tourist Board itself considers that it will be able to carry out the new responsibilities given to it principally from within its own numbers.

5.13 p.m.

Lord Howie of Troon

Is not the noble Lord the Minister being uncharacteristically harsh in accusing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of trying to negate the provisions of subsection (2)? I do not think that that is his intention, although the amendment is longer than the kind of amendments I am used to; nor, as I heard his speech, was he intending so much to negate the provisions as to make the provisions more reasonable. Is that not a reasonable thing for a reasonable man like the Minister to want to do?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in his amendment begins with the word "Provided". The very word "provided" indicates that he is not trying to negate the provisions of the Bill. It sets a body of circumstances in which the harsh rigour of subsection (2) might be ameliorated. Within these provisions it seems to me sensible that the noble and learned Lord should ask for the provisions of the Bill to be ameliorated. If we refer back to the discussions we had on the earlier amendments some little while ago the Minister will understand why the provisions should be ameliorated, and I have no intention of repeating the arguments because we have but a short while here and we do not want to overstay our welcome.

I was a little taken aback by the Minister's assertion, or apparent assertion, that the department would deal with any matter expeditiously. It is not my experience of the Civil Service that they deal with things expeditiously—not even the Scottish Department. They deal with them as rapidly as they may, of that I have no doubt, but I think that expeditiously is too much to claim. All that the noble and learned Lord was asking for, as I understood it. was that in certain circumstances where speed was of the essence the Scottish Tourist Board should be able to act with vigour, haste, and immediacy without being held back by the provisions of the Bill.

I am perfectly willing to have the Minister tell me that Lord Wilson's amendment, as drafted, goes perhaps further than that modest intention, and the Minister, I think, would be right if he were to say that, but the intention is that the Minister should apply his mind not merely to the wording of the amendment. The Minister should say, "Lord Wilson of Langside's intention is sound, the principle is sound, and the principle should be accepted: the Bill should be drafted in such a way as to make that principle appropriate in law and in practice". I hope that the Minister will take heed of these words, which are meant to be advisory, friendly, and helpful.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

May I proceed to be helpful too? What this amendment by my noble and learned friend does is highlight the position of the Scottish Tourist Board and the amount of difficulties which hedge it around. Perhaps I may take a practical example. The situation that I envisage happening very easily is that the Scottish Tourist Board will find out that in the programme which they may or may not have had from the British Tourist Authority an important promotion has been neglected or left out, or there may be an outright disagreement with the British Tourist Authority, which I would imagine the budget given to the Scottish Tourist Authority is designed to correct. If they feel deeply that a certain promotion should be undertaken and that there is only a certain amount of time to get in on it, then they should be able to act quickly.

The Minister should now take the advice on a previous amendment of his noble friend Lord Selkirk and, instead of being forced to waste a lot of time in negotiations with the British Tourist Authority in consultations, he will be able by using the word "may" to listen to the reasonable case of the Scottish Tourist Board and authorise them to go ahead. The amendment raises the points that we have been making on previous occasions.

Lord Wilson of Langside

I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for what they have said. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, were perhaps a little sensitive to the criticisms of my drafting, which I thought was at least as comprehensive as what the draftsmen often produce for our delectation. However, the amendment as it stands was essentially, as the Minister said, a probing amendment, and in the light of what he has said—and I hope he will give serious regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said—

Lord Howie of Troon

I have a horrible feeling that the noble and learned Lord is about to withdraw his amendment. Does he wish to withdraw before the Minister has had a chance to reply to these probing points put to him?

Lord Wilson of Langside

I had rather thought that I would withdraw at this stage. I had overlooked the circumstance that the Minister had not replied. I am sorry. I thought that we had been on these amendments for quite a long time.

Lord Gray of Contin

I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that we have been some considerable time on them, and I do not feel that I can make any great further contribution. But as a matter of courtesy I shall try to deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, raised and which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made. I shall deal with Lord Mackie's point first. He said there might be a case where there could he outright disagreement. Of course if there was outright disagreement then the will of the Secretary of State for Scotland would be the deciding factor. I explained earlier that the British Tourist Authority is consulted, but the decision is not dependent on its consent. The decision would ultimately be with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, suggested that I was accusing his noble friend of trying to negate something. What I was trying to explain was, like it or like it not, that would be the effect of the amendment: but as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it was a probing amendment. We have considered the possibility and I have tried to explain what the effect would have been.

If the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or to lead to loss of promotional opportunities, it may proceed without the Secretary of State's approval. That is virtually what the noble Lord is suggesting in this amendment. As I said earlier, I do not think it would he sensible to proceed on the basis that one writes something in and allows the person most directly concerned with it to decide whether it should be approved. That to me does not sound like the making of good law. There are others who are much better able to pass judgment on that than I am. As a layman it would seem a weak point to me.

Lord Howie of Troon

May I make a brief point? I do not wish to delay the Minister, but surely it will be within his experience—as it is within the experience of most of us—that the law of this country is dotted with provisions which make statements of a fairly straight forward and clear kind which are followed by the words, "except in so far as". Then follows the exception. Thus the notion of making an exception to a provision in the law is by no means new. It is hallowed by time immemorial.

Lord Gray of Contin

That may be so; but I am afraid I cannot really accept the amendment as it is proposed nor, indeed, is the principle behind the amendment sound. I do not think that we want to write into legislation anything which is not absolutely sound. Therefore I must, with the greatest respect, suggest that it would probably be better if this amendment were withdrawn. I trust that the noble and learned Lord might consider withdrawing it.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I am sorry to delay proceedings, but I think the Minister misunderstood the point that I was making. My point was very simple, that if the Secretary of State had a statutory duty to consult the British Tourist Authority and it was in direct dispute with the Scottish Tourist Authority, there was nothing like an authority of that sort for delaying its answer to the consultations until it was too late for the point at issue. Therefore the Secretary of State should be able, if necessary, to ignore that, which he could do by taking advice from his noble friend and putting in the word "may" instead of "shall".

Lord Gray of Contin

I am afraid that the noble Lord has misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. That is not what this amendment says. It suggests that the Scottish Tourist Board should not necessarily consult when it does not see the necessity for doing so.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

The Minister is quite right about this amendment. I dare say I was totally out of order in going back on a previous amendment to show him the error of his ways in a previous discussion.

Lord Wilson of Langside

With the leave of the Committee I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry I seem to have upset Lord Howie of Troon in doing it too soon.

Lord Howie of Troon

No.

Lord Wilson of Langside

There is no-one I should less like to upset because I have a great respect for the noble Lord. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I should like to make it clear to the Minister that in my fallible judgment he was wrong to suggest that giving people a discretion makes bad law. Half the had law we have emerges because we do not give people discretion, but they have to stick to the letter and lose sight of the spirit. Having made my point that I am not impressed by that part of his argument, in the light of what else has been said by the Minister and by others who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.27 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 20, after ("Scotland") insert ("provided they do so with the consent of and after consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board").

The noble Lord said: At first sight this amendment may seem to be asking for the Scottish Tourist Board what earlier amendments have sought to deny to the British Tourist Board. Even had the Minister been more yielding in some of the earlier amendments and given the Scottish Tourist Board more power, I would still have felt that this was an important amendment to the Scottish Tourist Board and to Scottish tourism. The difference between this amendment and the powers that the British Tourist Board has was emphasised by all the speakers at the Second Reading; that is that the promotion of Scotland is a highly specialised and delicate job.

I have no doubt that once again in any promotion that the British Tourist Authority will have for Scotland, there will be a great deal of discussion and involvement within the industry. Within the British Tourist Board the Scottish Tourist Board will have a voice and with the whole tourist industry generally before any major decision is made or any major promotion takes place. In this Scotland will have certain safeguards.

Nevertheless, the sheer difference in size between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority seems to us to mean that Scotland should have a more positive representation and a more positive voice in anything that the British Tourist Authority might do. This is coupled with the fact mentioned at the Second Reading debate and in the Statement in another place by the Minister of State at the Department of Trade, that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority will ultimately become the chairman of the English Tourist Board as well, working in both organisations. As I said earlier, because of the sheer size of the BTA and the combination with the English Tourist Board, it would be easy for the British Tourist Authority in promoting Scotland abroad, with the best intention in the world, to get it disastrously wrong. There have been examples—I am sure the Minister is aware of them—where there has been an overdoing of the Brigadoon type of promotion overseas. We are learning. Nevertheless, I am sure it would be helpful if the Scottish Tourist Board could be given the power to be consulted about anything that the British Tourist Authority will do in promoting Scotland overseas.

We know that there will be a great deal of co ordination and co-operation between the various bodies that make up the tourist authority. Since the Minister did not think that the co-ordination, co operation and consultation was sufficient in the case of the earlier amendments and insisted that powers be retained by statute, that the Scottish Tourist Board was so much subject to both the Secretary of State and the British Tourist Authority, it seems reasonable that the Minister should be willing to make this very important concession.

From what he told us earlier it is not as though there is likely to be a great falling out of the different parties. On the odd occasions when there is disagreement, the Secretary of State's word would be important. We are concerned that the Scottish Tourist Board should know how Scotland is being depicted overseas and should have some power to decide what shall not be put forward as Scotland to overseas markets. While he was defending the role of the British Tourist Authority and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister seemed to he considering always the importance of belt and braces. He would make no concessions; everything had to be watertight, and to anything that was suggested by us or by other noble Lords, he seemed (in the best spirit) to say, "No" because there could be risks here and risks there. Everyone, quite correctly has paid a tribute to him as being a very fair man. I would submit that it is asking very little that the Scottish Tourist Board be given the right to examine and, if necesary, even to veto any, particularly Scottish, promotion about Scotland that the British Tourist Authority are suggesting be put forward.

I would say to the Minister that the Bill generally has been given a very good welcome, but I feel that there has been a tendency to get the wrong flavour into the original idea of giving the Scottish Tourist Board some sort of authority, and the wrong flavour to the extent (as has been said by many noble Lords) of the grudgingness of the whole Bill compared to what was originally a good intention and idea. In order to try to recoup a little, I hope that the Minister will make the concession that we have asked for in the amendment. If, as the Minister has said continuously, everything goes with great consultation and great friendliness between the British Tourist Authority, the Scottish Tourist Board and the 4½ people in the Scottish Office that deal with tourism, it is a small enough concession to ask for and I hope that he will find some way to accommodate the amendment. I beg to move.

5.32 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I should like to urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It would make some sense of the whole Bill. Up to now it is a small thing—the £200,000 to be used somewhat grudgingly, as allowed by the Secretary of State and approved by the British Tourist Authority. But it is only sensible to give Scotland and the Scottish Tourist Board a proper say, a significant say, in the £2 million which the British Tourist Authority is spending overseas. To do that, they need the powers given in this amendment. It makes it into a real Bill which gives the Scottish Tourist Board some real say overseas without interfering with the British Tourist Authority and the general promotion of Britain. I think it is a very sensible amendment and I urge the Minister to accept it.

Lord Wilson of Langside

I, too, think that this is a wholly admirable amendment. It is right in principle in the context of this Bill that it should be there. I think in practice it would make the working efficiency and competence of the various tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority better. For that reason, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Lord Gray of Contin

This amendment would impose on the British Tourist Authority a requirement to consult the Scottish Tourist Board and obtain its consent to the BTA's promotions of Scotland overseas. I am grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the way in which he presented his case, but this amendment is fundamentally at odds with our intention as to how the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board should exercise their overseas promotion powers. I believe that approval of this amendment would be profoundly damaging to the cohesiveness of the 1969 Act framework, and to the coherence of the total British marketing effort abroad.

This amendment would oblige BTA not simply to consult the Scottish Tourist Board on its efforts overseas involving Scotland—BTA already does this as a matter of course—but it would make BTA's promotions involving Scotland subject to STB approval. Your Lordships will appreciate that much of BTA's effort on Scotland's behalf is made in the context of all-Britain promotions covering the three countries. In preparing such Great Britain promotions. BTA has to assess the relative marketing requirements of England, Scotland and Wales in relation to the target market and the particular product being promoted. The Scottish Tourist Board is in no position to gauge its marketing needs against those of England and Wales in any particular promotion. Only the British Tourist Authority, which can take an overview of the three countries' requirements, is in a position to make this kind of judgment. To give STB control over all-Britain promotions with any Scottish element would inevitably and unfairly prejudice English and Welsh interests. Where all-Britain promotions are concerned, the body at the centre—the British Tourist Authority—is the body best equipped to reconcile all the various competing needs and to take a final view of the right promotional "mix" for England, Scotland and Wales. This is the view I expressed at Second Reading and it remains a cornerstone of our policy on tourism promotion overseas.

The need for approval which this amendment would introduce would be wholly at odds with the basis of co-operation and consensus on which the boards currently operate and which I want to see continue. The BTA consults the national boards individually at an early stage in preparing its main Great Britain marketing programme and takes due account of comments made. Also, through the membership of the BTA board, the chairman of the three national boards are able to influence the scale and content of BTA's marketing programme for Britain as a whole. It is through such consultation and discussion that the marketing programme takes shape and is finally agreed. A statutory consultation provision affecting BTA and STB alone would just not work.

We fully acknowledge that Scotland would benefit from additional, specialised overseas promotions by the Scottish Tourist Board. Clause 1 is designed to allow this to happen. But we are also firmly committed to maintaining a coherent British effort under BTA's overall control. This amendment would fragment the overall effort, setting Scotland against the rest of Britain; and that is the last thing we want to happen. The way ahead, in our view, is not to seek confrontation—and I do not suggest for a moment that that is the intention of the amendment; but it could be its result—but to build on the existing framework of co-operation and consensus among all four tourist boards.

When we talk about the tourist boards, I think that I must emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, that there is no commitment to a merger of the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The new British Tourist Authority chairman, Mr. Bluck, will be looking only at the possibility of combination. No decision whatsoever has been taken at the present moment. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that it is our view that Scotland will benefit more amply from the measures which we are taking than if we were to do as the noble Lord in his amendment suggests. I hope that on reflection he may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Howie of Troon

I am beginning to have serious doubts about the noble Lord the Minister who. I am sad to say, I do not know very well, since he entered another place after I left it and has only recently joined us here. But I am watching with great interest. He has the reputation of being a reasonable man and we have all been telling ourselves all afternoon that he is a reasonable man. I do not know how reasonable he is; but he has not done anything remotely reasonable today as yet. He has not conceded anything. He has not said that he will think again. He has been nice, he has been agreeable, but he has not given us a thing. I see sitting beside him his noble friend Lord Lyell, whom we have often enjoyed on these Scottish occasions. He treats us fairly roughly and endearingly, but every once in a while he says, "I will think over what you have said". He does not mean that, but at least he says from time to time that he will consider, in thinking over what we have said, whether or not some sense can be made out of our arguments and the principles that we have tried to argue here. I have not seen the Minister do that today. I am not as yet convinced that he is an unreasonable man, because I see that he has a very reasonable face and I feel sure that in time he will convince me that he is a reasonable man: but he will have to hurry if he is going to do it today, because he is well behind the start-line in that particular matter.

He has just given us a very lengthy, detailed and extremely informative speech, which told us quite a bit about the relationships between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. I dare say it was philosophically sound, and it related precisely to certain questions put to him by my noble friend Lord Carmichael: but I am not sure, interesting though it was, that it was totally relevant to the principle of this amendment.

The principle is really a very sound and simple one. I would have thought it was a very reasonable one, which required a reasonable examination and possibly a reasonable reply, which I hope to have later. If it is right that the Scottish Tourist Board should consult with its British equivalent about particularly Scottish matters under subsection (2), it cannot be wildly wrong that the British authority should consult with the Scottish authority about specifically Scottish questions under subsection (3). The principle seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward one.

It is quite possible that the amendment is unduly brutal, because we on this side are simple folk and sometimes put complex arguments in over-simple ways. But the principle is clear, and I should have liked the Minister to have paused in the middle of that extremely informative speech and said, "Yes, there is an interesting principle here." He might possibly have said that the principle was wrong: but at least he could say. "I will have a look at the principle and consider it", instead of just damning it outright as he seems to have done. After all, we are just at the Committee stage, and there is a fair way to go. I should not like the Minister to lengthen the process by obliging us to put down all kinds of amendments at a later stage. All he has to say is, "There is some sense in this; I will look at it and see what sense there is, and see whether or not something can be done to make the Bill better."

The Earl of Selkirk

May I ask my noble friend, before he replies, whether he would be good enough to confirm that under the 1969 Act the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority? Is that correct? If so, does that in fact mean that all that the British Tourist Authority is doing will necessarily be known to the Scottish Tourist Board?

Lord Gray of Contin

Yes, I can confirm that, if I might answer my noble friend before I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is correct that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority. I indicated earlier that when the British Tourist Authority presents its programme for overseas promotion at the beginning of each year the chairmen of the various national tourist boards are in a position to hear exactly what is intended. They can then report back to their own boards, and thus, hopefully, conflicts are avoided.

To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who has been very nice to me all afternoon, I must say—and I feel rather unkind that I cannot give him something as a reward—the plain fact is that, however well-intentioned the amendment is, I am not satisfied that it is going to be an improvement. To accept the amendment, or even to give a commitment to take this away and look at it again without having some real conviction oneself that one can produce something which is better, is not really what the Committee would expect.

I cannot accept this amendment because I am not convinced that it would be an improvement. I believe that the arrangement the Government have proposed in the Bill is the best for Scotland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is as anxious to see the best for Scotland as I am. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is equally anxious to achieve that end, and although he supports the noble Lords in this amendment I must tell him that I am not convinced that it would be an improvement, and therefore I cannot accept it.

Lord Wilson of Langside

The noble Lord the Minister earlier spoke a good deal about the need for cohesiveness and consensus. That is a view with which none would disagree. For my part, I would have thought that this amendment would produce more cohesiveness and a more readily-reached consensus than the Bill as it now stands, under which the obligations to seek consent and to consult are all on the other side.

I have felt for a long time—and I said something of this on Second Reading—that there was perhaps a fatal flaw in the set-up which we introduced in 1969. I speak of the Government of which I was then a member. I thought it might very well be that the bureaucratic difficulties, which one gathered from the press, radio and television had arisen from the working of the 1969 Act, derived perhaps from the circumstance that the British Tourist Authority and the three national hoards all had common functions within the United Kingdom and then the British Tourist Authority was given, in addition to those same functions as the other boards, the overall responsibility for activities overseas. I could have understood a set up where the British Tourist Authority, having been given no functions within the United Kingdom, was given the overall administrative responsibility for co-ordinating the activities overseas (and perhaps within the United Kingdom, too) of the three boards.

I think this is relevant, or it may be relevant, to the Minister's search for cohesiveness or consensus, if that is what we want, in the working of the three hoards. I would have thought that in practice this amendment would promote that, instead of the wording of the Bill which, as I say, puts all the obligations to consult and to seek permission to do things on the Scottish Tourist Board and leaves the British Tourist Authority with a question mark against its place in the set-up, if I am right, with its powers and duties unimpaired and unaffected by this Bill.

Lord Gray of Contin

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I really cannot add, I am afraid, to what I have already said, other than perhaps to say that the Scottish Tourist Board itself is pleased with this measure. It believes it to be more than reasonable. The board itself has made no representations to me regarding the sort of amendment which noble Lords are suggesting at the present moment.

With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, I am not convinced that this would be an improvement. I believe that what the Government have set out is the most satisfactory position for Scotland. I am sorry that I cannot be more sympathetic to the amendments that have been proposed, but the only reason I am not sympathetic to them is that I do not see that any one of them would improve what is proposed. If I did, I would willingly take each suggestion away and look at it again. But I am not convinced and that is why I have not suggested that I might take them away.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to know that we have a piece of perfect legislation before us. This comes from a reasonable man. The only conclusion I can come to is that we have a reasonable man in an unreasonable Government. He now comes along and suggests to us that, after all, the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased with the Bill and has not complained. Mind you, the Scottish Tourist Board happens to be the creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints the members and he gets rid of them. I do not know whether or not they are reaching the stage of reappointment, but I cannot see the Scottish Tourist Board raising its voice in respect of this Bill. The question is: Are we satisfied that it is a piece of perfect legislation?

The Minister, if he is a reasonable man—I hope that he is not an insensitive man—must have been aware that on two earlier amendments he sat there isolated and alone. He listened for a voice of support from his own Back-Benches in respect of this perfect piece of legislation and it did not come. It is all right to expect the Scottish Tourist Board to require the consent of the Secretary of State; and if you go back to the original legislation on to which this Bill is tacked your Lordships will find that the consent of the Treasury is required as well, so far as money is concerned. It is all right for the Secretary of State to have to consult—the word used is not "may" but "shall"; it is a mandatory obligation—the British Tourist Authority. But when we try to put the balance right just a little, so that when dealing with Scottish projection overseas and all the publicity worth £2 million—

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

£200,000.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I am not talking about the Scottish Tourist Board; I am talking about the British Tourist Authority interpreting the needs of Scotland in respect of tourism, and that spends £2 million, not a grudging £200,000. But I gather that we shall be talking about money on Clause stand part. There was a promise given by the Minister, but we shall come to that later. But, surely, if there is any body which should know and should be concerned about our projection overseas, it is the Scottish Tourist Board. Is it unreasonable to ask for its consent? The Minister says, "But it already consults." I can see a gleam of light. We might even get that into the Bill at Report stage, if we miss out "consent" and put in "consult". We shall then get mandatory consultation.

Things are changing in the tourist field and that is the whole point of the Statement made by the Minister of State in another place. Our hackles were first raised when he tried to soothe the Welsh and English Members by saying, "This is only a very limited power that we are giving to Scotland." Before that, we thought we had achieved a great victory. I can understand that the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased that we have opened the door, but it would be far better pleased if it had some say in the spending of the much larger sum of £2 million. I could speak about some of the mistakes made abroad in the projection of Scotland by the British Tourist Authority. I could talk about incidents in Paris which affected Strathclyde, because of an individual from the British Tourist Authority, but I do not want to do that.

Every reasonable man would agree about the best people to advise on the projection of Scotland and on what is required in a particular year. In a year when we shall probably have a gathering of the clans you would not think that somebody who was purely identified with England would be able to advise properly. He probably could not even spell most of the Scottish names. That has happened, too. I could tell your Lordships about English Ministers who thought that Benbecula was off the West Coast of Northern England. There is an abysmal ignorance about anything that happens north of the Tweed among people who should know very much better. So we are reasonable in asking for consent.

The Minister says, "What we want to get is consensus". How do you get consensus without consent? What does the word "consensus" mean? It means everyone agreeing. The Minister made the perfectly valid point to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority, as are the chairmen of the English Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. I do not know whether it has escaped the noble Earl's notice that the gentleman who is to be chairman of the British Tourist Authority has already been told that he will become chairman of the English Tourist Board as well. I do not know how we shall get a fair consensus with one of these regional chairmen in the chair. I could have understood it if the chairmanship had gone around. That would have been sensible and fair—fair to the Welsh, fair to the English and fair to the Scots. This is really a very national matter of concern.

I know that there have been voices raised before about the prominence of English stalls at various functions, where they stake out the tartan and all the symbols of Scotland. Sadly for the English, they do not have the same symbolism in respect of nationalism as we have in Scotland. It may be easier for us. But, surely, this is why we should have consent. It is why this is so right. It puts right the balance in relation to the timidity of the Minister of State in respect of the other amendments. We would not have talked at any length about this amendment, if he had shown himself to be reasonable on the other amendments.

He is going away for Christmas and the New Year, and something said by Burns about independence might be relevant. What we want is a little more freedom for Scotland. Burns said that freedom and whisky went together. I know that the Minister of State is not exactly a teetotaller and there is just a chance that he will be savouring some very fine malt when he gets up to Inverness. Let him consider the amendments that we have put down and let him see the error of his ways in respect of getting the balance right between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board. We might help him on this, if we discover at Report stage that the amendments which he has put down are the same as the amendments that we put down. But I do not think that I would advise my noble friend to take us into the Division Lobby at this late hour of the night on this important matter. It is something to which we really must come back.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Ross of Marnock

I wonder whether we may have from the Minister of State the information which he promised us. We are all concerned about how the Minister of State will consent after his consultation, which will be very quick indeed. We have the Secretary of State with his four-and-a-half men, and if you take account of holidays that means effectively two-and-a-half men on duty at any one time. One can imagine how they will do this, and do it quickly. But there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that they will be allowed only £200,000 for their direct share in overseas publicity. How will this be determined? Will it be determined annually? And will the figure of £200,000 be supplementary or complementary? The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, could tell us the difference between "supplementary" and "complementary". If it is supplementary, it supplements; it is additional. Is it going to be additional, or will the £200,000 to be spent directly by the Scottish Tourist Board be taken out of the sum which would have been spent by the British Tourist Authority? In other words, do we gain £200,000 of freedom and independence, or do we lose £200,000 from the £2 million? I should like to know exactly how this will be determined. Will it be determined by the Treasury or by the BTA?

Lord Gray of Contin

We have had a very interesting afternoon discussing these amendments. Now that we have reached the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? I know that the Committee would not wish me to dwell for too long on the matter; but the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has asked me two specific questions and I shall try to answer them for him. Each year, with the approval of Parliament, the Secretary of State allocates funds to the Scottish Tourist Board. The £200,000 will be additional. This sum is no part of the funding already provided by the British Tourist Authority. In other words, it is extra money and it will be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide from time to time what the allocation of funds to the Scottish Tourist Board may be.

The noble Lord asked me how the consultations were to take place and for what purpose the £200,000 would be used. As I explained earlier, at the beginning of each year the British Tourist Authority will make known its proposals for overseas promotion. The chairmen of the various national tourist boards, being members of the board of the British Tourist Authority, will have the opportunity to comment on those proposals. It is our belief that some of the proposals will be the better for a certain amount of supplementary support from the Scottish Tourist Board. In those cases, the Scottish Tourist Board will co-operate as closely as possible with the British Tourist Authority in order to ascertain how individual projects could the better be supplemented with their support. In certain cases the method of consultation can be quite wide-ranging. In other cases it may be fairly minor, depending on the type of project.

Clause 1 contains the two main operative provisions. Subsection (1) lifts the 1969 Act restriction on the Scottish Tourist Board's operating power, and in order to ensure that the board's activities outside the United Kingdom are properly co-ordinated, subsection (2) introduces a consent and consultation procedure. I believe that the Bill hinges on Clause 1. It is vitally important to the Bill, and the Committee should, I believe, give a warm welcome to it. At Second Reading nobody spoke against the Bill. It was welcomed by all sides of the House. I believe that the Committee stage has proved useful because it has given us an opportunity to probe and discuss in some depth a number of issues which have been causing concern to us all. Although I have not accepted any of the amendments, I have listened carefully to what has been said. I believe that the Government's proposals are still the best ones in the interests of Scotland and that this clause is vital to the Bill. Therefore I invite the Committee to agree it.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

The noble Lord has suggested that during the Second Reading of the Bill nobody opposed Clause 1. That is quite true. We were happy in principle about the clause, despite the small amount of money which was entailed. The Minister must realise that although the helpful amendments which have been moved by me and by other noble Lords have been sympathetically dealt with, we have got nothing out of the Government. I hope the noble Lord has learned this evening that the Bill is not totally satisfactory and that the Committee has clearly expressed the view that the Scottish Tourist Board is not being given quite the independence, authority and opportunities that it should. We can only hope that when the Minister is in Scotland during the Recess he will absorb its atmosphere again and that he will come to the blinding realisation that we were correct. When, therefore, we reach the Report stage, or when the Bill returns here from another place, I hope the Minister will be willing to consider more seriously and sympathetically some of the points which have been made.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.