HL Deb 18 July 1990 vol 521 cc866-74

3.28 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 4, at end insert: ("(v) furthering the social development of such rural areas outwith the area of operations of Highlands and Islands Enterprise as defined in section 21 of this Act which the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instruments may from time to time designate; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the Motion on the Business of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that much was repeated in the Chamber. I make no excuse for occasionally repeating points. We do that on this side in the hope that we shall perhaps convert or at least convince people outside and educate them as to what the Government are doing.

The amendment is slightly different from previous amendments on the subject. It deals with the social remit of Scottish Enterprise. That body has not been given a social remit which would allow the local enterprise companies to adopt a more comprehensive approach to development needs in rural areas. We believe that Scottish Enterprise itself should have a duty to ensure that local enterprise companies so far as possible address the problems of the more fragile rural communities. It is important that the services provided by the local enterprise companies are both relevant and accessible in these rural areas. Whether or not Scottish Enterprise is given a duty to monitor the activities of local enterprise companies in the more fragile rural communities, there will be a need to provide a policy framework for the local enterprise companies on matters concerning rural development.

Obviously Scottish Enterprise itself would need to oversee local enterprise in this field. Such guidance could be provided, as I think I said at the previous stage of the Bill, by the rural development unit of the present Scottish Development Agency.

The EC regional policy already recognises that areas outwith the Highland area, as we define it, need special help. I mentioned earlier Dumfries and Galloway as two such areas. I have a certain hope in reintroducing this amendment because the Minister will note that the vote on this issue was rather closer than usual at 4 p.m. in your Lordships' House. I trust that the Minister has examined the Division lists and observed the wide range of noble Lords throughout the Chamber who supported the amendment. I hope that he has had discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Office about whether he can give a rather more helpful reply on the subject than last time. He will note that the amendment stands not only in my name but also in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk. Therefore, it represents a cross-section of noble Lords. There is a Cross-Bencher and a Member of the Minister's own party supporting the amendment. I hope that that fact will give the amendment added weight and that the Minister will give us some hope as regards our provision. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I must confess that I am a little curious about this amendment after having heard the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, explain it. The various items which are referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill cover a whole range of different matters. They deal with the economy, employment, skills for self-employment, industrial efficiency and the improvement of the environment. Surely it is the case that each of those elements, in an individual way and in a collective way, forms part of the social development of rural areas which the noble Lord has referred to. I would argue that it is only through the success of these individual elements and through the success of their coming together that the social development which the noble Lord seeks in his amendment comes about.

That situation already exists as regards the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That was certainly the case in the short term when I had direct responsibility for that body. What the noble Lord and others who support this amendment are trying to do is in a sense almost tautological. What they are trying to achieve already exists. That is precisely why the various elements in the clause are set out as they are.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the amendment which stands in his name, my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that we should not worry because the social element already exists. I am worried about that as an argument because the Highlands and Islands are given special advantages, which I fully support and understand. However, other areas in Scotland are not granted the benefits which are generally given to the Highlands and Islands.

In Committee the Minister said that there were areas akin—I think that was the word he used—to the fragile areas in the Highlands and Islands which deserved support in the same way as the Highlands and Islands. We are not trying to make this provision applicable to the whole of Scotland. However, we seek to allow the special advantages that are given to the Highlands and Islands to be given also to those areas—this point is different to the point raised in Committee—which the Secretary of State for Scotland recognises as fragile areas which demand special treatment. We are only asking for special benefits for those areas where the Secretary of State deems it appropriate to grant special benefits. I repeat we are not asking for special benefits for the whole of Scotland. There will be few areas which deserve such benefits, but they will arise. It will be a great pity if those areas cannot be treated in the same way as the Highlands and Islands.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a peculiar situation here. In one half of the Bill the word "social" occurs, whereas in the other half it does not. "Social" is an extremely difficult word to define. It means absolutely nothing until one puts a noun next to it. Then one can understand that the word, as it comes from the Latin, simply means friendly. The word "friendly" is a nice word, but it means nothing until one puts it next to another word.

The point that is at issue here is why the word "social" occurs in one part of the Bill but not in the other. There must be some reason for that. This position reminds me of Humpty-Dumpty, who declared that when he used a word it meant just what he chose it to mean, and no more and no less. I daresay that the Secretary of State has a precise method of defining the word "social" when it is applied to a factory, for example. After all, our factories are based on social development. They seek to raise social standards. In that sense the word "social" is perfectly well understood. However, is that concept excluded because it does not somehow apply to the south of Scotland? Will the Minister tell us why there is this division in the Bill? It does not make sense as it stands.

The word "social" can mean practically anything one wants it to mean. I have even found a reference in a dictionary to a "social war". If we are saying that no social development is required in Glasgow, I must beg to differ. There are other towns in the south of Scotland where social development is also desirable. I do not think that my noble friend will confirm that that is the case, but he must know to some extent that that is the case. I believe it is rather pretentious to divide the two parts of Scotland in this way. They should have roughly the same standards. I hope my noble friend would agree to that.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Glenarthur who put this amendment in its proper context. The amendment is not necessary because the Bill already takes care of what the amendment seeks to do. However, as one of those who lives in the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, I take great exception to this amendment. What the noble Earl, Lord Perth, seeks to do, whether he intends to or not, is to dilute the benefits offered to those who are trying to develop creations in the Highlands and Islands by offering the same kind of advantages to the central belt.

Over the years the Highlands and Islands have suffered from being the poor relation to the central belt of Scotland. In the days when Scotland achieved great things, that greatness did not come to the Highlands and Islands. There is no doubt about that. In Scotland's great days of heavy industry, the Highlands and Islands, the north east of Scotland and the Aberdeen area—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be only too well aware of this—did not benefit to any great degree. Now that we have obtained something by courtesy of that great Scot, the late Lord Ross of Marnock, whose creation the Highlands and Islands Development Board was, there are people trying to dilute the benefits which exist in the Highlands and Islands. I pay tribute to the late Lord Ross of Marnock. I hope that my noble friend the Minister of State will have nothing to do with this amendment and will make sure that it goes no further.

If all this determination to achieve equality in this way had existed, particularly on the part of the Opposition, when the Labour Government of the mid-1970s created the Scottish Development Agency, they would have included this measure in that legislation. However, they saw no necessity to include it then. The situation in Scotland is infinitely better now than it was in the mid-1970s. Therefore there is even less of an argument for including it now. I advise my noble friend to have nothing to do with the amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, made the comments he did. There is no question of diluting any powers of the Highlands board. It is rather a matter of a slight extension of those powers. I do not believe that anything will be taken away from the noble Lord in his fastness up there near Inverness.

The noble Lord mentioned the Aberdeen area and the north east of Scotland. All that this amendment and previous amendments have tried to do is to allow the Government to extend the support which they give to the Highlands to areas which are similar to the Highlands and have the same problems. We have been supported by the Minister who has said that his native heath, the Borders, has areas like that. We have them in Aberdeenshire, we have them in the glens of Angus and in Perthshire. I see no reason why it should not be extended. We have the amendment that could do the trick.

On the last occasion the Minister himself admitted that the SDA's environmental work in Glasgow had a strong social flavour. Why should he not do so in this case? I am sure that he will. After all, he is quite sensible. Good arguments have been produced from this side of the House and, so far, rather poor ones from his own Back Benches. I trust and hope that he will accept the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I should like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said by reminding him of the deliberations which he and I and other noble Lords have had in Sub-Committee D of your Lordships' European Communities Committee where we have been looking at how to enhance the quality of life in rural areas within the Community, and that includes Scotland. The conclusion that we have come to, which your Lordships will read when the report is published, is that the quality of life in rural areas can be improved by improving the economy. One has to make sure that there are jobs and that there is training for jobs. That is what the Scottish Development Agency has done and that is what Scottish Enterprise will do.

As my noble friend the Minister of State explained very clearly at the previous stage, the additional assistance that is needed in the Highlands and Islands area is of a particular kind because of its extreme remoteness and therefore extreme fragility. I am sure that my noble friend will reiterate what he said about the word "social" for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Selkirk who raised that point. In my view the amendment is not only unnecessary but wrong.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, one of the great advantages of the Highlands and Islands board area is that it is a very clearly defined one. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. He mentioned Aberdeenshire and Dumfriesshire. He left out the poverty-stricken area of East Lothian, and I deeply resent that.

Once one starts extending an area, in legislative terms, one finds oneself in very considerable trouble. The amendment seeks to extend the furthering of social development to such rural areas, and where that ends nobody knows. I heard my noble friend Lord Selkirk refer to the social problems of the city of Glasgow—Sauchiehall Street is hardly a rural area; not, at least, when I knew it last.

The Highlands and Islands area, which used to be known as the crofting counties, has always been, as it should be, a special area deserving special attention. It has always received special attention, and very rightly so. Although there have been understandable attempts to draw the borderline further south, borderlines are always unsatisfactory, be they geographical or financial. I say that with deep sincerity because for the last 30 years my own farm has been the first farm outside the difficult areas. I have looked over the fence and seen my neighbours getting the subsidies that were denied me. I remember when I was in the Scottish Office and responsible for these matters that I suggested to my officials that it might be possible to alter the line. I received a pretty cold response.

I hope that my noble friend will resist this attractive but, I believe, quite illogical amendment.

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment, for a couple of rather negative reasons. Both touch on the point which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made; namely, that it is very difficult to define the word "social". For example, I recall that when I was chairman of the Hydro Board and operated, in part, under the dictate of what was known as the social clause, it was very difficult to initiate and implement policy with that type of emphasis because the permanent officials could always explain to the board why such a policy would be impossible within the terms of the social remit. Indeed, the laying of submarine cables to the outer islands only became a pressing reality when the EC made substantial funds available to the Hydro Board. That is another story, but it touches upon current political events.

I believe that the noble Lord can accept the amendment because it will not make all that much difference.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Goold

My Lords, like other noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken, I believe that the general functions as stated in the Bill will help to promote business and enterprise in Scotland and that rural areas will share in those benefits. There are adequate alternative facilities and bodies, public and private, available to deal with social developments. Far better that Scottish Enterprise should be unfettered by any specific obligation which this unnecessary amendment might impose and be allowed to concentrate on the development of Scotland's economy, training, competitiveness, etc. From the success of that work great social benefits will accrue to both rural and urban areas. I believe that we should oppose the amendment.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)

My Lords, I am grateful for the short but very succinct debate on the amendment. I am mindful of the advice offered from all sides of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that whatever I say will not make very much difference.

As I indicated during consideration of the Bill in Committee, Scottish Enterprise will be primarily an engine of economic development, with training and environmental functions as well because those relate closely to that economic development role, as my noble friend Lord Goold said. However, on reading in Hansard our debate on 3rd July I think that some noble Lords may have been under the impression that Scottish Enterprise will be unable to participate in projects with any social content whatever. That is not the position. So long as a project has any economic benefit—for example, in improving the local economy or developing local skills—Scottish Enterprise can and will assist in relation to that element. It is only if there is no economic benefit whatever in view that Scottish Enterprise would be unable to participate.

My noble friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour quite rightly pointed out at Committee stage that the Scottish Development Agency has done a good deal of work within its economic development and environmental improvement remit which has also had a tremendously beneficial social effect.

Perhaps I may mention one or two examples—from rural areas, not from Glasgow which is a separate issue, although no one should say that the Scottish Development Agency and the Government have done nothing for Glasgow. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, does not infer that, but I should like to put the record straight for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. We have done a tremendous amount, for example, through GEAR.

Perhaps I may give two examples from rural areas. The agency is contributing £245,000 to the conversion of derelict land to provide playing fields at Langholm in Annandale. In Perthshire, the agency is assisting environmental improvement works in Birnham Village Centre to the tune of £41,000, and it is contributing £300,000 to the redevelopment of Aberfeldy Square and Rie-Achan car park in Pitlochry under its reclamation role. All those projects in their various ways will have self-evident social benefits for the local communities concerned, alongside the economic aspect which justified the SDA contribution.

Through the PRIDE scheme—the Programme for Rural Initiatives and Developments, with a budget of £5 million for the three years 1988 to 1990—the SDA is helping the private sector to initiate proposals in rural areas.

I am confident that this approach will continue under Scottish Enterprise, and in particular that the needs of rural areas will continue to be met under Scottish Enterprise within the terms of the Bill as it stands now.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned the SDA's rural unit and asked whether it was under threat. I am sure that it will continue to be important to have a source of expertise in rural issues within the central organisation. It will be for the board of Scottish Enterprise to determine its own staffing structure. I do not see that that is a problem regarding the noble Lord's immediate concern.

The local economic audits which the prospective local enterprise companies are now carrying out will provide a specific opportunity for the special needs and opportunities presented by these areas to be highlighted. In due course that will be reflected in the operating plan of each local enterprise company.

Already we are seeing the benefits of these economic audits. Only yesterday a new scheme was launched in Dundee, as a direct consequence of the local survey, which combines employment training with a job guarantee from local employers to successful trainees. I was particularly pleased that Campbell Christie at the STUC warmly endorsed this scheme. It is very good to see the major new flexibilities now available within employment training already used to such good effect.

Mention has been made of the Highlands board, for which I am responsible. Let me put in context the social remit of the Highlands board. At the moment around 2 per cent. of the board's expenditure goes on social development—mostly, as my noble friends said, in the form of community action grants. These give financial assistance towards the cost of projects which meet social needs and contribute to social development. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to Lord Ross, who foresaw the outcome when he put through the Bill in 1965.

We wish to see that social remit for the Highlands and Islands enterprise area continue. We do not wish to have that changed. But we remain of the view that there is no part of lowland Scotland where the economic and social elements are so closely interwoven as to be inseparable in the way that they are in some parts of the Highlands and Islands.

I apologise for speaking at length on this matter but it is important. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that we are implementing straight from the 1975 Act (which the Labour Government put through in respect to the SDA) and the 1965 Act (which Lord Ross put through in the Labour Administration with regard to the Highlands and Islands). Those two Acts are replicated in this Act so far as concerns the social remit.

In conclusion I wish to convince noble Lords that the Government too attach great importance to Scottish Enterprise playing a full role in rural areas. But we consider that a specific social remit is not necessary, for the reasons I have stated. I hope that from that full explanation noble Lords will understand the Government's point of view.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am sure that the reaction from the Benches behind the Minister justifies our having put down this amendment. I do not want to rehearse the arguments but, to say the least, there was a great deal of confusion as to whether or not this provision was included. There were arguments as to whether it could be read into the Bill, or whether the Highlands and Islands were so distinct that it became quite a separate matter and therefore should not be mentioned in the Bill.

I was slightly more reassured when the Minister confirmed that the rural development unit was almost certain to continue. I and the other signatories to the amendment stressed that the Secretary of State would be the person to make a decision on whether certain areas would be given a specific social remit. We were well aware that there could be instances in which incoming industry would perhaps not be willing to settle unless there were some infrastructure development by Scottish Enterprise. We were talking about relatively small sums of money which could perhaps bring in a great deal more money.

I did not expect that this amendment would incite nine speakers to intervene. That illustrates its great importance. Scottish Enterprise must pay some heed to the social aspects of any work that they do. I hope that that is so because the people who previously built up Scottish industry showed little interest in the social aspects. I hope that Scottish Enterprise in the lowland areas will pay attention to that side.

Unless the other signatories to the amendment—the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk—wish to do otherwise, I suggest that the reply of the Minister has been sufficient to allow us to withdraw the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.