HL Deb 24 January 1994 vol 551 cc866-74

6.34 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take further action to assist the media and the public to distinguish within the United Kingdom the separate administrative bodies and the different systems which operate in Scotland.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object is to inquire what is being done by the Government to help the media and the public to recognise that separate systems and institutions operate in Scotland in many fields of life and activity. At present misunderstandings often occur and the public are unintentionally misled.

I shall give an illustration. Three weeks ago the leading news item on British television and radio was about proposals by the Secretary of State for Education concerning discipline in schools. During the following two or three days when meeting acquaintances in the street and elsewhere, including former constituents who are inclined to engage me in conversation about current events, this subject was raised. They were surprised to learn that these proposals did not apply to Scotland. Some did not realise that my right honourable friend Mr. John Patten, whom they had seen speaking on television, had no responsibilities for our schools in Scotland. I had happened to see the television evening news and heard the radio that day and nothing had been said to indicate that the proposals concerned England and Wales.

I raise this question because I hope that more can be done to avoid situations where families in Scotland watching the main news on television think that an item like that involves their children and their schools. To complete that episode, I ought to make clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office Education Department were not inactive on discipline in Scottish schools and that their initiative, dealing with discipline in schools had taken place earlier, in November, in different circumstances, including consultation with the main Scottish teachers' union, the EIS, which does not operate south of the Border.

I am glad to see that a Scottish Office Minister is to reply this evening—my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, the Minister of State. The matters which I am raising are mainly for the attention of other government departments, particularly those dealing with England and Wales. I hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend will do his best to influence his colleagues in other parts of the Government. This is needed to give practical support to the admirable White Paper Scotland and the Union, which was issued by the Government in March. Among other things that White Paper sets out clearly in Annexe C the departments of the Scottish Office and their functions. That annexe contains a store of information with which the public in the United Kingdom as a whole, including Scotland, is unfamiliar.

Moreover, because the Scottish Office administers so much in the domestic field there are some government departments in Whitehall which have no functions in Scotland. Other Whitehall departments exercise only some of their functions in Scotland. For example, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have no functions in Scotland. They are the lead departments in the United Kingdom, formulating general policy and handling international aspects, but the administration of the National Health Service, dealing with health authorities and other health functions, are in Scotland the business of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Similarly, the subjects dealt with by the Department of the Environment in London for England and Wales are all handled separately in Scotland by the Scottish Office: for example, housing, planning and local government.

In home affairs the Scottish Office has to deal with crime. That is not unexpected because Scots law is different and Scottish courts are separate. For example, the Secretary of State signs warrants to authorise telephone tapping, like the Home Secretary, and has other similar functions, including prisons and the fire service. A Scottish Office department administers agriculture and fisheries within Scotland working closely with MAFF. Education has already been cited. Schools, teachers and their unions are the concern of the Scottish Office not the Department for Education.

I hope that those examples are enough for noble Lords to appreciate that it is not easy for most people, unless they are involved, to carry in their heads these divisions of functions. They are also unlikely to have Annexe C, to which I have referred—valuable document though it is—on their persons. Nor are the representatives of the media. Those closely reporting Parliament will be well informed but will not have the details at their fingertips. They should not be expected to do so. They deserve one helpful, simple addition of a few words in prepared announcements. I suggest that procedures should be in place in the departments based in London to identify, in government announcements, those parts of the United Kingdom to which they apply. Otherwise news items and broadcasts received in Scotland will from time to time continue to mislead, unintentionally, and to confuse.

I give two examples of what can happen. On the evening of 2nd March, families in Scotland watching the lengthy first item on television news learnt that new secure training centres were to be established for juvenile offenders. Only later, and by chance, were they to discover that that was not proposed for their communities in Scotland. Few members of the public know that the functions of the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary in these matters are limited to England and Wales. The announcement in Parliament made no reference to that, presumably because MPs and Peers are expected to know. A better way would have been to state clearly at the beginning that the proposals applied only to England and Wales, and to add that Scotland's different system was also being considered for possible changes or innovations. Unless care is exercised in that way, some of those Scottish families will regard such an announcement as another example of Scotland being forgotten or, worse, thought not to matter.

The other incident also illustrates how misunderstandings and confusions arise. On 4th February, a Statement was made by the Secretary of State for Transport. It was described as applying to the national road network of motorways and trunk roads. National, my Lords? The proposal applied only to England, but nowhere was that stated. The Scottish office is responsible for roads in Scotland. When the Statement was repeated in this House, halfway through the subsequent questions an inquiry about a road in Wales prompted the Minister to declare, to gasps of surprise, that the whole Statement applied only to England. The lack of identification, together with the use of the word "national", led newspapers on the following day to present the proposal as for Great Britain. Readers in Scotland searched the accompanying maps and list of projects in vain to find anything proposed for north of the Border. Their conclusion was likely to have been that Scotland had missed out again.

The irony is that motorways and trunk road improvements are popular in Scotland whereas such schemes have been opposed and delayed by objectors in England—and the announcement to which I referred was immediately criticised by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Furthermore, expenditure on roads in Scotland has been continuously more per head than in England. Therefore, unwittingly, a completely false impression was given in Scotland.

Those situations could be greatly reduced before announcements are made or documents issued by determined efforts to identify in the headings or at the beginning of texts what application, if any, they have north or south of the Border. It would then be clear that a particular proposal applied to England only and that another applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. That would help the media which, I believe, would welcome the guidance especially as they normally have to work at speed to meet deadlines. They do not have time to check Annexe C or its equivalent.

I mentioned that Wales was being dealt with separately with regard to the road programme. I believe that everything that I point out this evening can be helpful to the Welsh Office—and increasingly so as I am sure that the Welsh office will continue to take over more functions from Whitehall. I remember when it was established nearly 30 years ago. It was five years old when I started my term as Secretary of State for Scotland. I have followed its progress with special interest. The Scottish Office is 109 years old.

It must be borne in mind also that Scots law is different from that in the rest of the country. I was glad to see a letter in The Times on 30th November from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, a Law Lord in this House, commenting on a leading article and pointing out that a pronouncement about the status of confessions in the British legal system did not apply in Scotland. I hasten to assure noble Lords that I also write and telephone to the media when the way in which news is presented is likely to lead to misunderstandings; and I have received grateful acknowledgements. But there is a limit to how much an individual can do without the risk of being regarded as an eccentric.

Historically, Scotland has also had its own education system resulting in different examinations at different stages and a separate curriculum for schools. When the name "national curriculum" was adopted for England and Wales a few years ago, it led to much confusion in Scotland—and still does for the public there. I protested in this House about the name, but it was too late. "Curriculum for England and Wales" may be clumsy, but in future cases in other fields the importance of accurate descriptions and of avoiding the impression that Scotland has been overlooked should be considered. Confusion on the subject continues today in Scotland. It is not realised by many people that Sir Ron Dearing's recent recommendations have no application north of the Border.

There can be significant differences in practice in Scotland arising from past customs and traditions. A topical example is Sunday trading. The Shops Act has not applied in Scotland and shops are free to open on Sunday. There have been no restrictions. Only about 23 per cent. of the shops in Scotland open on Sundays at present. The factors which apply are local opinion in different areas, and demand, but not legislation. I have been disappointed to observe that most of the media, most of the time during the controversy in recent months on the subject, have overlooked that fact. Knowledge of the Scottish experience in recent years might be helpful to England and Wales in finding a solution.

The names of bodies and institutions can cause ambiguity. Annexe C will not help in that regard. I mention a few which have Scottish counterparts: the National Trust; the Parole Board; the Law Society; and the Sports and Arts Councils. For example, the Parole Board has an equivalent —the Scottish Parole Board—but that is not widely known. So far as concerns the Scottish bodies, the words "Scottish" or "of Scotland" are always included in the titles.

When it comes to new bodies and names for them, I ask the Government to take special care. Only a few years ago a new body was brought into existence—the National Rivers Authority—although it was to have no functions in Scotland. The press thought that it covered the whole of Britain; and who can blame them? The misconception continues today. It is especially unfortunate because Scotland is over one-third the area of Britain, land and water, although containing only one-tenth of the population. It has about half the coastline of Britain. So a large proportion of Britain's rivers and coasts are not within the NRA's ambit, despite its name.

Confusing also for the media and public are references to "the Roads Minister", "the Housing Minister" or "the Local Government Minister" when his functions are only in England or England and Wales and he has an equivalent in Scotland. They are all Ministers of State or junior Ministers. I am sure that such considerations apply to the Welsh Office. They will have their equivalent Ministers for Wales, if not there already.

The Scottish Office also has several groups of inspectors reporting to the Secretary of State on pollution, education and other subjects. The titles of the equivalent officers south of the Border can be confusing. For example, the Government Chief Medical Officer and Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools and Prisons have no functions in Scotland. The picture is even more confusing—I am sure that noble Lords will understand the difficulties for the media—when the "chief" concerned is a Scot, although he does not deal with Scotland.

A major benefit of the Union is that its flexibility provides opportunities for the English to excel in Scotland and Scots to excel in England. That is happening at the moment. Particular abilities are used in appropriate positions to everyone's advantage. The Government's Chief Medical Officer and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools are at present both Scots: Dr. Calman and Professor Sutherland. In neither case does their work involve Scotland. We should have pity on the media having to meet deadlines at short notice in those areas.

There is another example which is very close to us here; namely, that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose functions do not extend to Scotland. The appointment of judges, the administration of the courts and associated subjects in Scotland are the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned friend has been Lord Advocate, and I have been Secretary of State, so we are well aware of that situation. But we must be in a very small minority in the country. In many fields there are fruitful exchanges between England and Scotland. They make it less easy, however, for the media and the public to sort out who does what in which parts of the United Kingdom.

I add to my message this evening a brighter note. I believe that in the past two years or so there has been an improvement. More often than in the past, media news items have included at the beginning the words "in England and Wales", so that viewers, readers and listeners in Scotland know immediately that it does not apply to them. However, there is still a very long way to go, though I do not ask for very much. I ask only for a small addition to procedures followed by vigilance and alertness. In the spirit of the Citizen's Charter, I ask the Government to do more to help the media, and through the media, the public. The extra trouble needed in Whitehall departments is small and the good effects attainable are very worthwhile.

6.52 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for raising this debate. To people who do not go home to Scotland every week, the matter may seem rather petty. But those of us who live in Scotland and who are involved in Scottish affairs are very aware of the way in which Scotland is frequently lumped together with the rest of the UK when, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, a Scottish Minister may have no function in England or an English Minister in Scotland, and the same is true of an establishment or an organisation. That becomes an annoyance to most of us in Scotland.

The saddest part of the matter, and another side of the argument that the noble Lord put, is that it becomes a very serious irritation to many Scots. Sometimes a cheap and aggressive chauvinism shows itself. It is a quality that most of us do not like. I find it extremely unpleasant. Perhaps down here we are so familiar with what is Scottish and what is UK business, or what is solely English or Welsh business, that we may ourselves become a bit careless, and when we speak it is to people who understand the distinction. There is no doubt that south of the Border the importance of the Scottish dimension is sometimes ignored.

The Government should make many of the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, suggested. Change will not be brought about overnight. It will take some time. It may perhaps merely be a matter of sending a letter every now and again. When a statement comes out or a Bill or report is produced, it would not do any harm if someone in the Scottish Office were given the job of dropping a little note to the relevant UK department to say that the department had it wrong. It is a small matter, but it would save a great deal of trouble.

Those south of the Border should realise that there is that Scottish dimension and they should clearly distinguish between Scotland, England and Wales. When the United Kingdom is discussed, it would be a very small matter, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell said, to add to the procedures simply to put that point in. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the problem. He has been in the same position as all of us have in company in Scotland, and he will know what a silly effect it has when referring to matters such as football and Murrayfield etc. It perhaps gives us all a wee tingle. But it is unnecessary. It annoys me when sometimes it becomes a maudlin, if not aggressive, chauvinism. I hope that the Minister will pay a great deal of attention to the debate tonight and carry it with him back to Whitehall.

6.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

My Lords, I very much welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend. I was of course aware of his concerns, but I should like to say immediately that I share his views that the distinctive nature and features of those bodies and systems which operate exclusively in Scotland should so far as possible be recognised throughout the United Kingdom. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very clear exposition of the issues. He provided some particularly telling examples. I hope that there will be Whitehall departments that will follow his words very carefully.

Scotland must always be seen in the context of the Union, and we are committed to maintaining and strengthening Scotland's role in that Union. One of the Union's great strengths is its ability to accommodate different approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. What is appropriate for Scotland may not suit Northern Ireland, for instance; and English institutions may not fit Scottish circumstances. The Union is, however, sufficiently flexible to allow distinctive solutions to emerge in all four parts of the United Kingdom. It is not a straitjacket of rigid constitutional prescription, but rather a subtle instrument able to move with the times and meet the needs of its citizens in different ways in different places.

The existence of these different arrangements can however be confusing, and my noble friend has put his finger on a substantial difficulty: how to ensure that the media and the public can better distinguish the different systems in the different parts of the United Kingdom. Like him, I have felt that sense of frustration when, for example, newspapers and the broadcasting media refer to developments south of the Border in terms which imply they are equally applicable in Scotland. As my noble friend said, that is usually unintentional. Sometimes, frankly, it is just a matter of sloppy reporting. However, it is not unknown for it to be deliberately, mischievously confusing.

In answer to my noble friend I acknowledge that the Government have an important part to play here. We must ensure that government statements properly reflect their territorial scope. My noble friend may regard some Whitehall departments with responsibilities exclusively relating to England and Wales as the worst offenders. But it is correct that we too should recognise that, while my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland naturally announces policy for Scotland only, in respect of forestry his statements cover the whole of Great Britain. For our part, that ought always to be made clear.

I think that our White Paper, Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good, published last March, to which my noble friend referred, will help meet some of the concerns of my noble friend. The paper stresses not only the benefits which Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole have derived from the Union, but also the importance of bringing the Union alive. In that context the paper points out that, The Union is not something which affects just one Department of Government, the Scottish Office. If new life is to be breathed into the Union its existence must permeate every area of Government. Account must be taken of the Union by all Government Departments, at all itmes". I do not think that even my noble friend would look for a more ringing declaration.

Naturally I acknowledge that there may be occasions when we fall short of our own laudable targets, and I will indeed consider further with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the points which my noble friend has so persuasively made. However, I hope that he accepts that the Government's heart is in the right place. The commitment in our White Paper is both comprehensive and clear.

Acknowledgement of Scotland's position within the United Kingdom—and, conversely, that of the Kingdom's other constituent parts—may be made not only in the narrow context of government statements and media reporting. The Union operates at many levels and consequently there are many aspects of Scottish life where Scotland's status as a nation may be recognised.

For instance, there might be more acknowledgement from all parts of the United Kingdom of the significance of the major institutions of Scottish life: the legal system, the professions, the Church, the universities, the learned societies and the financial institutions. Likewise, more might be done to acknowledge Scottish cultural excellence and the revival in Scottish arts, of which no doubt much more will be said on Wednesday.

We do not want to come across as prickly and lacking in self-confidence about the intrinsic worth of these aspects of Scottish life. But we wish to avoid unhappy or uncomfortable strains that too easily arise and are as easily exploited by that minority in Scotland which has no concern for the continued existence of the Union and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, indicated, was indeed an undesirable feature. In the parliamentary field, Parliament should be seen as a fully United Kingdom Parliament, reflecting in its composition, institutions and ceremonial the diversity of the Kingdom's constituent parts.

Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to take the opportunity of this debate to bring the House up to date on the implementation of the proposals which we made in the White Paper. All the major proposals are now implemented or are well in hand. The list is too long to give noble Lords a comprehensive account, and in any event this is not the occasion. But perhaps I may briefly single out a few of the most significant changes.

The White Paper placed particular importance on Scotland's relationship with Europe and we have achieved substantial representation for Scotland on the Committee of the Regions. We want to bring to Scotland more decisions affecting Scotland, and much has been done to take forward the White Paper's proposals to transfer certain functions and powers to the Scottish Office: for instance, responsibility for training policy and for the Scottish Arts Council, to which the noble Lord made reference.

To make the Scottish Office more accessible to the public we have established a Central Enquiry Unit which can be reached from all parts of Scotland through a special telephone link. We have also opened 22 information points throughout the country, with another four in the pipeline. Perhaps we ought to have one in England too. Indeed, one significant feature of the experience in Scotland is the number of inquiries received about the responsibilities of Whitehall departments.

Constitutionally, the most significant proposals in the White Paper relate to improvements in the parliamentary arrangements for handling Scottish business. We intend that there will be several changes to procedures in another place and greater use of existing procedures. Most will focus on an extended role for the Scottish Grand Committee.

For example, the committee will be able to debate the Second Reading of a Bill, including major government programme Bills. The committee will have the opportunity of up to 12 sessions each year for general debates; an additional opportunity to question Scottish Office Ministers, with an oral question time similar to that already held in another place; short adjournment debates initiated by MPs; and rather more formal evidence-taking sessions.

We intend that those sessions will hear not only from Scottish Ministers who are members of the committee, but also, as is the case with Select Committees, that Scottish Office Ministers or Law Officers who, like me, are Members of your Lordships' House may give evidence if they agree to do so. The parliamentary proposals have been the subject of consultation with Opposition parties and we anticipate that they will be implemented before long.

This has been a short but useful debate. The noble Lord indicated where the problem lies. I am grateful to have had the opportunity as a Scottish Office Minister to respond. Undoubtedly, I share his view that if we are to continue to make progress, this is a debate which should concern not only Members of your Lordships' House from Scotland or Scottish MPs but every department in Whitehall. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the matter.

House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.