Lords Sitting of 1 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Lord Kelvedon
The Right Honourable Henry Paul Guinness Channon, having been created Baron Kelvedon, of Ongar in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Walker of Worcester and the Baroness Rawlings.
Lord Henniker—Took the Oath.

Public Health Laboratory Service
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the Public Health Laboratory Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the status of the Public Health Laboratory Service as a non-departmental public body of the Department of Health. I know that when the previous government were in office the noble Baroness had some concerns that the PHLS might be privatised. I can assure your Lordships that that will not happen under this Government.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reassuring reply. There is a problem of infections which are resistant to antibiotics and which are now occurring all over the world. Does the noble Baroness agree that the PHLS should maintain the highest standards? Can she assure the House that there will be no cutbacks and no fragmentation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the PHLS and the Government take seriously the whole question of antibiotic resistant infections. Guidelines on the matter were issued to the National Health Service in 1994. We expect that shortly there will be revision of those guidelines. I know that the PHLS is co-operating with our European partners in this area. I hope that means that the highest standards will be maintained both as regards national and international surveillance.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that the PHLS provides one of the finest independent services in the world and is truly the guardian of the nation's health? As 50 per cent. of
82
its funding comes directly from the department, can she give an assurance that the PHLS is not robbed to pay for the new food standards agency?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I naturally agree with the noble Baroness as regards the high standard of work of the PHLS. I hope that my previous replies to the noble Baroness have reassured her on that matter. I understand that PHLS expenditure in 1997–98 will be about £115 million, of which just half is funded directly by the Department of Health and the Welsh Office. The rest is made up from independent contracts with the NHS. Of course, we hope that there will be considerable co-operation with the new food standards agency. The implications of the funding are yet to be resolved in detail but I am sure that that will not affect the quality of the PHLS work.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of the importance of epidemiology in the Public Health Laboratory Service, is the noble Baroness happy with the number of epidemiologists already employed and the number being trained for the service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe there are about 3,400 staff working for the PHLS across the network of laboratories and epidemiology centres within the country. Of course it is important that we maintain those high standards, as I hope I conveyed in answer to the two noble Baronesses. High levels of training and high levels of resources for those working within the service are important to maintain the kind of quality of standards we want to see both in the epidemiology and the microbiology services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, has the Minister any progress report on the worrying situation of the E.coli infection in Scotland which seems to have occurred in a small area?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the James Report was published quite recently. We are still looking at the consultation process which was carried out after the James Report was published. We shall act on that once the consultation has been considered.

Pension Sharing
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Youngasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to publish the draft Bill on pension sharing on divorce.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I think it fitting that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who helped me harry the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is now (in the nicest possible way) harrying me.

83
We all want pension sharing. It is fair; it recognises the contribution of both spouses to family income; and it improves pension income in retirement, especially of women. We shall be publishing a draft Bill during the coming parliamentary Session to help make sure that the legislation is sound. Our aim is to do so by the early part of next year so that we can meet our implementation target of April 2000.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I also thank her for the letter she sent me on the matter. As she would expect, I am somewhat concerned by her Answer. Is she aware that it had been the intention of the previous Government to publish a Bill this coming November? From her reply, it appears that she will publish only draft legislation. Given the length of time that any legislation takes, can the noble Baroness satisfy us that we shall see pension sharing in force by the year 2000?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I, too, am anxious to see the April 2000 target delivered. However, the noble Baroness will know that the current Government face extreme pressure on the legislative timetable. Almost every department in government has had to lose to subsequent Sessions Bills they would have wished to have seen in the first Session. The Department of Social Security is no different in that respect from other departments.
As Members of the former Government Front Bench will be aware, the Bill is technically very complex and needs the support of the pension industry and lawyers. The Pensions Management Institute has said that getting the legislation right is more important than getting it through quickly.
I have checked on the timetable. Had we taken the Bill through Parliament this Session I doubt whether that would have allowed us to have improved much on the April 2000 target.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, are sufficient resources being employed to ensure that this legislation gets through as quickly as possible? We all have the same objective in mind: to get the legislation through properly as quickly as possible. But I agree with my noble friend Lady Young. I am slightly perturbed by the use of the word "draft". I hope that all resources are put behind this new department.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, share the noble Baroness's concern. I am satisfied that we have sufficient staff for this. I am also satisfied that the draft Bill which will be published early in the new year will for the first time allow us to engage those players—the industry, the legal profession, women's organisations, the British Diplomatic Spouses Association, Fairshares, and the like—to be able to consult on a draft Bill. It is the first time that that has been done in the DSS. We are putting the emphasis on consultation prior to the final Bill going into Parliament rather than spending the time on the implementation
84
period thereafter. That is how we are balancing the issue given the pressures on the legislative timetable that I am sure noble Lords will appreciate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend asked the Minister whether there are adequate resources. The Minister replied in terms of staff. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the delay has anything to do with the cost? Are the Government able to meet that cost in their proposed budgeting, and, if so, roughly what might that cost be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are potential costs to the Government as an employer were people employed by the Government enabled to take their share of pension splitting out of the scheme. That is why we entirely support the previous Administration's proposals—I believe that they were supported by the entire House—that where one is dealing with unfunded schemes, as with the Civil Service and the like, former spouses become scheme members of the existing scheme and may not take their money out.
As for the rest of the additional cost, it is certainly true that there may be implications for tax relief for the Inland Revenue on the level of pension splitting and the headroom between that and tax relief. But clearly that in itself depends on the financial arrangements that will circumscribe the tax relief of pensions over the next 50 years. Against that, there are clear savings which will come from floating up many women—they would otherwise be on income support—from being dependent on benefit in old age.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, having listened to that rather complicated reply, would it not be easier to stay married?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may be easier, but whether that is in the nature of harmony is another matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall her impatience with me last year when I suggested that this was a difficult issue? Does she recall dividing your Lordships' House successfully against me putting in a clause in the divorce Bill which would have implemented pension splitting almost immediately—a clause long in principle and very short in detail? Was she wrong when she said that pension splitting was a simple thing to do and that I was just dragging my feet? If she was wrong, I hope she will say that she was wrong and accept that I was right to say that it was difficult.
However, having said that it was difficult, am I right in saying that a Green Paper and a White Paper were produced by me and that we were ready to move? Is the noble Baroness telling me that we shall not have a Bill until the 1998–99 Session, and that a whole year is to

85
elapse? Is the noble Baroness satisfied that she is doing what she pleaded in your Lordships' House for government to do a year ago on this issue?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am being advised by my noble friends to answer two of the noble Lord's questions, but that would be such a pity. I would much prefer to answer as many as possible.
The problem was created by the noble Lord when he as Minister had to be persuaded through two separate Bills—first, a Pensions Bill and, secondly, a Family Law Bill—to enshrine in legislation the commitment of this House to pension sharing. Had the Minister and the Government of the day not resisted pension sharing for as long as they did so that it took the combined efforts of the entire House to persuade and overwhelm the Minister, no doubt we would have been further forward than we are today.
On the second of the noble Lord's questions—or was it the seventh?—yes, I am as confident as I can be that we shall meet our target date of April 2000. However, given the pressure on legislative time as well as the willingness to consult, that seems to us the most practical way forward.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many of us welcome the idea of publishing a Bill in draft? That will probably avoid the problems associated with the Child Support Agency, to take a single example.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is absolutely right. Too often over the past 18 years we have seen badly drafted legislation in which the Government of the day resisted all the amendments from the Opposition Benches. That has subsequently meant, as with the CSA, that we have had to have regulations every six months, and a new Bill every 12 months, in order to produce the legislation which should have been properly drafted in the first place. We do not wish to see that happening to this Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as we appear to have the time, perhaps I may ask a further question. Can the noble Baroness explain why she insisted that her amendment should be put to a Division and was won on the Bill, if the whole issue was as difficult as she suggests?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, because I had no confidence that the government of the day would deliver.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Minister said that she believes in pension splitting. Does she agree that there is another group of women who remain married but who would benefit greatly from pension splitting at the stage of their husband's retirement? Will she consider that point together with other matters?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me; it may be my fault, but
86
I am not entirely sure that I understood the purport of the question. Was she referring to judicial separation or the problems associated with earmarking?
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I was referring to the wives who remain married but who, for fiscal reasons, would benefit if their husbands were able to share their pensions because the tax would be different. Very often those wives contributed towards their husbands' occupations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for misunderstanding the purport of the question. The noble Baroness is right, there is always the problem that if the financial arrangements of a marriage are broken up and two people are treated as though they were single, they are in a different financial situation from the one where they are married. But against that, it must be said that married couples enjoy a whole array of financial advantages under the law—perfectly properly, in my view—which more than compensates for that.

Bus Lanes: Effectiveness
3 p.m.
The Earl of Bradfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that bus lanes operate efficiently and effectively.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, buses are a vital part of the transport systems in our towns and cities. Bus lanes help to keep buses moving in traffic but are often blocked by illegal use. My department is researching new ways of giving buses priority in traffic and of enforcing existing bus lanes. The recently announced review of bus policy will consider options for improving the effectiveness of bus lanes.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that realistic reply. Are the Government aware that major delays are caused by delivery vehicles obstructing bus lanes throughout the day, forcing buses to pull out to get round them? That defeats the purpose of bus lanes. Will the Government consider adopting the system operating successfully in several major Continental cities, where delivery times are limited to the hours between midnight and 6 a.m.?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to highlight the problem of delivery vehicles blocking bus lanes. The Government have considered the problem, and it concerns us. However, requirements for access to frontage businesses— particularly on red routes—need to be taken into account at the stage of bus lane planning and during consultation. Normally bus lanes operate only during peak periods, that is, between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning and between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the evening. We are aware that on the Continent bus lanes usually operate all day and that deliveries must be

87
made at night. But that would cause a considerable burden to frontage businesses. We wish to concentrate on enforcing the existing times for bus lanes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that tourist coaches frequently park in the bus lanes immediately opposite your Lordships' House? Is there any general rule exempting tourist coaches from the rules that apply to every other mortal?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of the exact legal position with regard to tourist coaches. I will write to the noble Lord with the details. There are exemptions to the bus lane prohibition, for example, pedal cyclists, but I do not know the details, so I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am one of the many motor cyclists in your Lordships' House. Can the Minister give any encouragement to motor cyclists that the Government will consider allowing them to use bus lanes?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the experiment in Bristol was inconclusive. Motor cyclists are not normally permitted to use bus lanes for safety reasons. There is, of course, a major public transport review and I have no doubt that, through the associations representing motor cyclists, the noble Lord will wish to make his case. But at the moment motor cycles are not allowed.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment on the experiment of equipping buses in London with cameras? Do the Government believe in encouraging it? It happens in other cities which have terrible traffic problems, just like London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the use of additional security cameras to monitor the illegal use of bus lanes at prohibited times is to be extended. My honourable friend Glenda Jackson, the Minister in another place, has referred to the importance of an event at the end of July to draw attention to the illegal use of bus lanes and to the enforcement that will be possible by the proper authorities through the use of security cameras.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a problem just as serious as parked lorries and cars in bus lanes arises when cars are driven illegally in bus lanes, blocking the yellow boxes? Can she tell the House who is responsible for the enforcement of bus lane regulations and whether the Government have any plans for extending them?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, traffic wardens are responsible for dealing with the
88
problem of the illegal use of bus lanes. I have seen such enforcement being undertaken regularly in the bus lanes outside your Lordships' House.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, are we not perhaps looking at the problem the wrong way round? Should we not encourage the free use of essential vehicles all day long while providing limited facilities for private cars?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that is the kind of issue that will be put forward and discussed as part of the review of transport policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, states from a sedentary position that everything is being reviewed. Perhaps much needs to be reviewed after 18 years of the previous government's policies, not least with regard to public transport. The review will offer the opportunity for all interested groups and representatives of interested parties to put forward measures. But it is clear that something must be done, particularly when we consider the effect on children's health of the totally unbridled use of the private car in urban areas.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the major cause of congestion is not bus lanes but the deregulation of public transport by the previous government? Does she agree that all our towns and cities are jammed full of buses of all shapes and sizes? What do the Government feel about that?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is widespread concern about the results of deregulation of public transport outside London because of the previous government's policies. When producing a White Paper for an integrated transport strategy, following consultation, we will consider this important area. My noble friend is right. In all too many cases people in suburban areas and particularly in rural areas have had their services reduced because it is in the interests of the operators to compete for the most financially profitable routes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 24-hour bus lanes have been operating in Reading for some while? They are a success, for the simple reason that people—certainly those who live in Reading—know that bus lanes are bus lanes and it is an offence for others to drive in them. Will the noble Baroness consider the Reading situation? It is not an experiment. Will she also consider whether contraflow bus lanes might help the flow of public transport, particularly in London and other big cities?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in Reading, as in many other local authority areas, successful plans have been put into practice which suit the local circumstances. I am sure my noble friend will agree that much depends on the geography of a place

89
and the pattern of travel within it. But in cities and towns as diverse as Reading and Edinburgh very successful local schemes have been put into effect.

Funding Agency for Schools
3.10 p.m.
Lord Henleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are advertising for a new chairman and board for the Funding Agency for Schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the terms of appointment of the present chairman, Sir Christopher Benson, and six other members of the board of the Funding Agency for Schools expire at the end of September. We have invited applications to fill these posts. That is consistent with the code and guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This is based on the very helpful recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. The remaining eight members of the board have terms of appointment extending at least to next March and, in four cases, beyond that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if, as we understand, grant-maintained schools are to be emasculated and the funding for grant-maintained schools is to come from the LEAs, what function will the FAS (Funding Agency for Schools) have in the future? What then will be the necessity for appointing a new board and a new chairman to the FAS? Might it therefore be advisable to retain the existing members and board until after such time as the noble Baroness and the Government have made a decision on the future of grant-maintained schools and the FAS?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord opposite that it was his government who decided to extend the appointments of the members of the funding agency for just six months. In fact, it is entirely consistent with Nolan rules, when making a second appointment following an initial one, and perfectly reasonable to consider whether an appointment should be terminated or whether the person in that post should be reappointed.
So far as concerns the "emasculation" of grant-maintained schools, such is not our intention. We shall introduce legislation to change the status of grant-maintained schools and are discussing with the agency what that will mean for it. In the meantime, the agency will continue to have very important functions to carry out and will need a properly constituted board to oversee them. That board will have to continue its work for quite some time since, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Bill to make the changes will not be introduced until, at the earliest, some time in November and possibly later. It will be a large Bill and will take some time to go through both Houses of Parliament.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the expertise that has been built up by the
90
Funding Agency for Schools in York will be retained and not wasted, if a new chairman and board are constituted? Can she also say, if a new board is constituted, whether it will still be based in York and so preserve the opportunities there for the jobs of some 150 to 200 persons?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I have already explained, the agency will continue to carry out its functions for quite a long time. So it will be necessary to retain the expertise of those staff who work in it. We are currently discussing with the agency what the change of status of GM schools will eventually mean for it; the position of the agency staff will need to be considered as part of that process. We have no intention of removing the agency, and those who work in the agency in York, from that city.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that in the early 1980s chairmen and vice-chairmen of public bodies who were faintly suspected of holding liberal views were culled with an intensity and ruthlessness appropriate to cattle with mad cow disease?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I remember it well.

Imperial College Bill
3.15 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Referendum in Scotland]:
The Chairman of Committees: I should inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint") and insert ("2nd October 1997").
The noble Lord said: This is but a small amendment to start the ball rolling on this important piece of legislation. It seeks to insert the date of 2nd October 1997. The other

91
amendment linked to Amendment No. 1 will mean that the Welsh referendum will also be held on 2nd October 1997.
The Committee has probably noticed that I do not attempt to delay the referendum by putting in the year 1998, 1999 or even 2000. That is unlike pension splitting on divorce (about which we have just spoken), which will go on into the rather dim and distant future. It will pinpoint in all our minds when this important referendum is to take place.
Indeed, the Government might find it useful—I am always in the business of trying to help the Government in the new configuration of this Chamber—if they have a target date at which to aim for the White Paper, for example, and for all the preparations that will be necessary in order to conduct the referendum. It seems to me, therefore, that 2nd October might be a very helpful date for them.
Equally, we must consider all those people who will run the campaigns on this referendum. There is of course the potential for four campaigns in Scotland and one campaign in England—unless we accept some of the other amendments, when there will be the potential for many other campaigns in Wales as in Scotland. But essentially as the proposal is before us, we should have a "No, no" campaign, a "Yes, yes" campaign, a "No, yes" campaign and a "Yes, no" campaign. Those members of the Committee who are not too long away from school will remember the question about tossing two coins: heads-heads, heads-tails, tails-heads and tails-tails—and the chances of gaining the desired outcome on each of those events. The referendum in Scotland is a little like that. The referendum in Wales is simpler, at least for the moment, and only requires a "Yes" or a "No" vote.
So there could be four campaigns, with four campaign managers and four teams. They, it seems to me, need time and certainty about when the referendum will take place. Then there are all the returning officers and no doubt we shall discuss them in a day or two when we come to the schedules incorporated into the Bill, which were previously draft orders, draft orders which would have kept the Committee here well into August. It seems a little careless on the part of the Government to plan like that. But I feel that the returning officers would find it helpful to know that they are aiming for 2nd October. Then there are all our friends in television, radio, the press and so on who, equally, want to know how to plan.
The point about the next two months, August and September, is exactly that: they are August and September. They are holiday months, especially August. I remember that when I suggested that we consulted on some consultation document and I named the month of August as one of the two or three months during which the discussions should take place the reaction of the then Opposition was predictable: how dare I suggest that people could possibly meet in August and discuss these great issues, whatever they may be? But this is a seriously great issue: whether to say "Yes, yes", "Yes, no", "No, no", or "No, yes"—I confuse myself when I think of all the options.
This is a seriously great issue and in Scotland we are being asked to look at it during the month of August. While August may not be the peak holiday month for those resident in Scotland—I must not call them Scots; that appears to bring the accusation of ethnicity (I am happy to be called a Scot but perhaps that is politically incorrect nowadays)—many people in Scotland do take their holidays in August. Equally, a lot of people who are resident in Scotland are busy making money from people who take their holidays in August. They do not have time to consider the White Paper or all the literature that will be produced.
The month of August therefore is not the best possible month during which we should study this issue and vote. The noble Lord may tell me that the Government have not decided on which date we shall vote. I shall find that fairly amazing, but perhaps not surprising. I keep reading reports suggesting 4th September, 11th September, 18th September and even 25th September. In this amendment I propose 2nd October. I believe that that would give everybody a clear date towards which to work. It would also give those of us who are resident in Scotland the month of September and possibly part of August in which to study the issues and listen to the campaigns. It would give the people campaigning a proper time to campaign on this important issue.
I have little doubt that, when the referendum is over and if the Government side win that referendum, we will be told, when we analyse critically any Bill introduced afterwards, that the people have already spoken and we should not discuss the issue further; we should simply agree with what the Government are doing because the people agreed it in the referendum. In those circumstances, therefore, the referendum is extremely important. It will decide the tactics conducted both here and down the corridor by the government party.
Some Members of the Committee may think that I ought to have put the date as the first Thursday in November, or even perhaps the first Thursday in the new year. I have not checked my diary to see if that is New Year's Day. If so, it might be an appropriate day on which to hold the referendum. However, an end point would be a good idea and the end point I suggest would give us two months. We do not know when the White Paper will be published. I anticipate and hope that it will come during the course of this month, which will give us in this Chamber and those in the other place time to debate it. It will give my fellow residents of Scotland time to discuss the issues and listen to the arguments, taking into account any holidays that they may have. It will then give us time to assess what we should do before 2nd October.
I hope therefore that, for both Scotland and Wales where this is an extremely important issue, the Government will accept Amendment No. 1. Just in case they start in a negative frame of mind and do not accept the amendment, perhaps they will tell the Committee and the world at large—perhaps not the whole world

93
at large but just the United Kingdom and particularly Scotland and Wales—on which date they intend to hold the referendum. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that the Government would welcome Amendment No. 1. It adds credibility to their intentions. In many statutes over the years power has been given to have an appointed day made by Order in Council, but such appointed days have sometimes never been appointed. That is because the Government decided, perhaps in order to implement a manifesto commitment or to raise hopes in the public mind when they have no intention of going ahead, to put the power into the hands of whoever makes the Order in Council—Her Majesty, of course, makes it on advice.
Surely it would be better to make the position clear, as my noble friend Lord Mackay said. If the Government say that they do not know when the arrangements will be completed for the holding of the referendums, I shall find that rather strange. Do they need more than three months to do that? They have the whole of July—today is the first—August and September. We are accustomed to elections and have even had referendums in this country. Surely the administrative machinery could be put into force and the printing done quite easily within three months.
I hope that the Government will realise that the amendment is in their interest. In relation to the date chosen, 2nd October, many of us know from experience that the climate in Scotland is often rather good at that stage of the autumn and the days have not become too short for people to travel if they have to travel to polling stations. It is therefore a sensible day. It would surprise me if the Government do not accept the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Looking at Amendments Nos. 1 and 23, I am not convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said at col. 1223 on 17th June, when he said that a different day should be chosen for Wales as opposed to Scotland.
What has been learnt since 1979? It was all right then to hold referendums on the same day. It is quite clear that the issues are different—of course they are; one is to be a legislative assembly and the other is not. However, I am not convinced by what is proposed and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say as to why the days should be different.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I oppose Amendments Nos. 1 and 23 for the very reason to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago. The amendments suggest that the same day should be chosen for the referendum in Wales as that for Scotland.
The experience in 1979 was that the national media— the press and television—gave twice as much coverage to the Scottish referendum as they did to the Welsh referendum. That is particularly difficult because, whereas more than 90 per cent. of the newspapers that circulate in Scotland are printed in Scotland, only 13 per cent. of the newspapers that circulate in Wales are actually printed in Wales. It is therefore essential, if the Welsh electorate are to have a proper opportunity to consider the issues that arise in the referendum that
94
pertains to them, that there should be a period of time after the Scottish referendum when the national press and media can concentrate upon the issues in Wales. It is for that reason that I oppose those two amendments.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I confess that I am extremely disappointed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I had hoped that he would explain why he chose 2nd October of all dates. We heard generalities as to why he did not like September but did not hear why it should be 2nd October.
The 2nd October is a particularly bad date. It is Rosh Hashana—the Jewish New Year. I understand that no practising member of the Jewish community would vote on such a date. It would therefore be only proper for noble Lords opposite to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that they did not intend to disenfranchise the Jewish communities of Scotland and Wales and that the amendment was tabled in total ignorance of the significance of the date. I therefore ask that they withdraw the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As regards the point that has just been made, I would be perfectly happy to make it a week later, provided it was also considered whether there was a Moslem or other holiday. I speak as the Patron in Chief of the Scottish Pakistani Association, which is by far the largest ethnic community in Scotland. So I do think that a week later might be better.
Perhaps I may remind the Government and the Front Bench spokesmen what happened on the last occasion. While the Scotland Bill was going through in this House I recommended that there should be at least a six-week interval. I am glad to say that that was accepted by the government. The referendum order came before both Houses on 5th December. That had already been published a week or two beforehand and it had the date of polling day—1st March. So on the last occasion both Houses and the country had at least three months' notice of the date. I just remind the Government Front Bench of what happened on the last occasion.
Earl Russell: Before I address the amendment I should like to take half a minute to congratulate the Welsh Conservative Party on its conversion to proportional representation. I think it is quite right. It has suffered a grave injustice that 20 per cent. of the vote has led to no representatives in Parliament. I simply hope that that conversion is for better, for worse.
I very much hope that this is a probing amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has many times across this Chamber lectured me on the virtues of flexibility. They are not quite as great as the noble Lord has sometimes argued but I have always conceded that they do exist. As soon as you fix anything finely in primary legislation, then you need primary legislation to reverse it.
Perhaps I may take a hypothesis which is not in fact quite impossible. Suppose there was an earthquake. There has been a serious earthquake in London. There

95
could be one in Edinburgh. It would be a considerable inconvenience to have to put through new primary legislation to alter the date of the referendum. It is that kind of inflexibility which one suffers if one puts things into primary legislation that are really too small to belong there. As to why the noble Lord took the date of 2nd October, I am tempted to a perhaps unworthy suspicion that he did it because 3rd October to the Anglo-Saxons was a notoriously unlucky day.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems to me that the important point about the amendment is not the specific date but that there should be time between the publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum. That really is important. It is important because not only do the voters have to become acquainted with what is in the White Paper so that they will know what they are voting about, but those who will have an opinion on the subject which might enlighten the voters need to know too.
I was surprised when I telephoned the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ask whether it had anything to say about the timetable. The person to whom I spoke said that the convention had no view on that; all it wanted was a referendum as soon as possible. That strikes me as very strange. I do not think that the convention can have thought very much about what will be in the White Paper unless it knows—it may know already—and thinks that it does not matter. It seems to me that it is likely to affect the convention very much and that the voters will need to know what it thinks about the matter. The Law Society of Scotland, to which I also spoke, told me of one or two concerns it has about the referendums Bill and the White Paper, but it, too, did not have a view about the timetable.
The schools in the area where I live are sending their children home tomorrow. A good many local authorities in Scotland will be sending home their children tomorrow; others will be sending them home a week or perhaps two weeks later. Where I live they are coming back on 18th August. In Scotland, 4th August is a bank holiday, so it stands to reason that many families will take their holidays in the last week of July or the first or second week of August. That means that whenever they are going away, whether now or in the next two or three weeks, they will not see the White Paper until they come back. There will be a very short time during which they can study the White Paper.
Likewise, many people who are councillors or lawyers tend to take their holidays slightly later because they are interested in what is going on in Parliament. They do not want to be away when it happens. They will be at home when the White Paper is published but they will not be available to advise the public when the public comes home. There is quite a long spell when people will simply not be there.
The most important point of all about the referendum is that people should know what they are voting about. Later in the Committee stage we shall be discussing other aspects of that question, but the timetable really matters. I understand the problem about 2nd October. I have to say that 9th October is a time when my part of the world will probably be having potato holidays, so
96
it is all very difficult. There must be time between the two dates. When we hear the date of the publication of the White Paper, it will be very much easier to discuss the issue.
Lord Tebbit: We are engaged in a slightly academic and artificial debate and the matter could be cleared up very quickly indeed. I am in favour of a degree of flexibility in these matters. The noble Earl has put the argument for that well. However, we are all proposing to celebrate the millennium on a date which I think was fixed a couple of thousand years ago, so one should not go overboard on that argument.
One has to be careful about dates at the beginning of October. As we know, the beginning of October is the occasion for those festivities of the conferences around the seaside. No doubt they will be particularly interesting this year, so we should not keep people away from those.
The essence of the argument which my noble friend put and which I think is in the minds of all Members of the Committee is that there should be proper time between the publication of the White Paper and the actual referendum. If we could be given some guarantees about that we would be able to reach a conclusion on this amendment very quickly indeed. That would enable us to get on with other more interesting amendments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I could not agree more with what the last speaker has said—that we might get on to the other amendments. Whether they are interesting or whether they are there for a different purpose I would not know.
The argument that we need to have time in Scotland to think about the referendum is curious. Everyone except the Conservative Party seems to know that Scotland has been thinking of little else for the past few years. That is probably why the Conservative Party does not have a seat left in Scotland. It does not know what people are thinking. The referendum was put in as an extra precaution by the Government, who are far too over-cautious about it in my view. However, they are putting it in now, and the sooner we get the Bill through the better. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will not take seven minutes to introduce every trivial amendment he has tabled.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have put down an amendment, which appears later in the Marshalled List, making the dates of the two referendums identical. Although it has not been grouped, the debate has obviously gone over that ground. It is very important that the dates should be identical because the one that is held earlier may influence the later one, particularly if it is a larger vote than the later one. It is the Eatanswill principle which your Lordships may remember—shout with the mob; and if there are two mobs, shout with the larger one. It is exactly the same principle which in some European countries precludes opinion polls for a week or a fortnight before an election—because people tend to vote with the larger mob.

97
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has taken to the Treasury Bench as if he had been born in a Dispatch Box, said at Second Reading—I hope that Members of the Committee will excuse me while I use a magnifying glass—
"There are different issues to be addressed and we believe that since there are discrete issues, the Scottish referendum ought to precede the Welsh one".—[Official Report, 17/6/97; col. 1223.]
It would have been equally cogent to say, "Since there are different issues we believe that the Welsh referendum should precede the Scottish one". When the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, looks back at the end of a very distinguished political and legal career, I cannot believe that he will think that that was one of his most cogent arguments.
That is the reason why the dates should be identical. It is precisely because the earlier referendum with the greater number is likely to influence the later one. Whatever the Government feel about the date, I hope that they will at any rate agree that the two referendums should be held on the same day. As regards the rest, I agree entirely with the noble Lord who said that the important thing is that there should be sufficient time between publication of the White Papers and the referendums.
I have been following what the critics recommend about summer and holiday reading: none has recommended either of the White Papers.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to speak at this stage, but I am encouraged by the speech that we have just heard to comment on two points. I will come back later to the powerful arguments for holding both referendums on the same day and for having adequate time before the electorate is asked to consider the issues after the White Papers have been published.
I am really prompted to my feet by the fact that the Liberal Democrat party now seems to believe that it has joined the Government Benches and spends most of its time doing the work of government Ministers. I am prompted to comment by two speeches that we have heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the past few minutes. One suggests that there is no need to have these debates because everyone in Scotland knows exactly what is going to happen. I am not speaking about Scotland, but I do know a little about Wales.
The truth is that no one in Wales knows exactly what is going to happen if only because the Government themselves do not yet know how the thing is going to work and have certainly not been able to draft a White Paper yet which will explain all the details. The publication of the White Paper in Wales is an absolutely fundamental requirement if the Welsh electorate is to understand what is going on.
We do not want a misleading view of history recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about what happened last time. Of course I accept the fact that the Welsh press printed in Wales is read by about only 13 per cent. of the electorate in Wales. Indeed, I made the same point when we last debated this matter. If the noble Lord really believes that the issue was not adequately debated in Wales last time, he is wrong. The issue was very
98
vigorously debated. How could it not have been when Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Donald Anderson and a whole string of other leading Labour politicians featured in the media almost daily? The reality is that the matter was very fully debated. I made a string of appearances around Wales in one form or another. I can assure the noble Lord that whatever he may have been doing at that time the people of Wales were very fully debating the issue. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, nods in agreement. So let us not perpetrate a myth at this early stage in our debate. We must have adequate time in Wales for proper consideration of a White Paper which has not yet been published for the very good reason that I do not believe the Government have decided yet what is going into it.
Earl Russell: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to take note that the degree of apparent agreement between these Benches and the Government Benches is very largely the achievement of the Conservative Party and were Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, for example, leading for the Conservative Party, we might be having a very different and much more interesting debate.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wish to make clear that I share the views of all Members of the Committee who have spoken. We need adequate time between publication of the White Paper and the holding of the referendum. Where we part company is that I am absolutely and totally confident that there will be adequate time between publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum as it is being considered by the Government at the present time.
What astonishes me is the attitude of Members of the Committee opposite in asking for adequate time for a long campaign. I thought that they had learnt a lesson from long campaigns. When one looks at the history of general elections in this country, campaigns normally run for three weeks until polling day. The general election date this year was the brainchild of Conservative Central Office. It said, "We shall have a six weeks' campaign and we shall really get our message across. People will understand and they will re-elect us". Tory MPs are as scarce as hens' teeth in both Scotland and Wales after a six weeks' campaign. I believe that Members of the Committee opposite should exercise just a wee bit more caution when they talk now about the length of the campaign, given the background of their bitter experience of a long campaign earlier this year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the objection? Is it that the date is too early or too late? Or is it that there is a date at all? Is that the objection and the reason for it, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at Second Reading in another context, that it ties the hands of government? If that is the objection, then in these circumstances it is about right that the hands of government should be tied.
3.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be able to

99
tell us the proposed date of the referendum and of publication of the White Paper before we abandon this amendment.
We are having a referendum not on whether we are to have an Act to give schoolchildren free sweets or something like that but on a very far-reaching constitutional change which is going to affect the whole of the United Kingdom, not only Scotland. So what on earth is all the hurry about? It seems to me that a matter of this kind should be given very serious consideration not only by Parliament but also by the people of Scotland and Wales who are to vote in the referendums. They should have plenty of time. I have heard rumours that the White Paper will be published only towards the end of this month and that the referendum is to take place in early or mid-September. If that is true, then I do not consider that there is anything like adequate time for people to take in the contents of the White Paper and consider them.
Lord Rees: I have no doubt that many of our debates for the next few weeks on this issue will have echoes of what happened 20 years ago. Many Members of the Committee in this Chamber recall with painful clarity what happened then. But, of course, there is one fundamental difference. Twenty years ago, we came to a referendum after something like six or eight months of careful, detailed debate about the precise form of devolution which should obtain either north of the Border or west of Offa's Dyke. In this case we are being asked to approach the issue with nothing more than a few scrappy words in the course of the election campaign. I do not believe that that is a serious basis for serious legislation in this Parliament.
I am not over concerned with the agricultural, climatic or even religious implications of 2nd October. I am afraid that I am uninformed as to what the Druids would have thought about any particular date. But I am concerned that some of us would like to take an active part both in this House and outside. I must confess that I played a minor role 20 years ago, although it was nothing like as strenuous or distinguished as the role played by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that in Wales we have been a little less self-absorbed than some of our friends and relations north of the Border. We have not been talking day and night about the precise form of an assembly and what its powers and occupation should be. We should like to know long before we move to that kind of issue, either at Westminster or west of Offa's Dyke, exactly what is to be in the White Paper. What sort of assembly are we to have? What will be its powers and what sort of prerogatives will it be endowed with?
There are three critical dates. The first is the date of the White Paper. If the Government are serious about a referendum in the early days of the autumn—we hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will disclose the Government's hand on those critical points fairly soon—when will the White Paper be published? When shall we have an opportunity to debate the White Paper? A White Paper does not have legislative
100
significance. It is merely a few suggestions. Or, in view of the slight tinges of arrogance which have been manifested by this Government, is it perhaps a diktat which we are bound to accept? Of course, it is not. Indeed, the expression on the Minister's face is such that it shows that he will be open to argument. When are we to have the White Paper and when are we to have an opportunity to debate it? How many days will there be for debate on the White Paper? And how long after that before the referendum in either country takes place?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is much more qualified to do so, raised the issue of whether the referendums should be on the same date in both countries. I shall not touch on the almost insulting issues as to where the bigger mob is—north of the Border or west of Offa's Dyke—or whether my compatriots west of Offa's Dyke are likely to be influenced by what is said in Inverness or—dare I say?—in Orkney and Shetland where there may be a rather interesting outcome.
I support the amendment not because I am wedded to the date of 2nd October but because I want to know when the White Paper will be published for our inspection, when we shall have an opportunity to debate it, and how long will ensue afterwards before we have a referendum either in both countries or in one country.
Lord Peston: I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me for joining in the debate. I came in solely to listen as a way of passing the afternoon. I had no intention of coming out of hibernation in order to address the Committee. I assure Members opposite that I shall return immediately to hibernation. However, I have found what has been said interesting or irritating; I am not sure which.
As regards the question of time, we should pause and think. I sat on that Bench over there for 10 years and I must have used the same argument countless times. My record of being rejected was exactly 100 per cent. Members of the Committee opposite will get used to that kind of rejection over the next decade. I can tell them that you live through it and you just about maintain your sanity. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends do not remotely fall for that one or, if they do, I should like them to explain to me afterwards why they have done so when we failed so often ourselves.
However, my main interest is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, whether I am right about the consequences of what they are saying. In particular, do they now accept that there should be referendums? Is it now Conservative policy that the party supports the referendums and therefore supports this Bill? If that is the case, they will withdraw a number of amendments which are totally destructive so that we can all go home earlier. I really do want to know whether they now accept the referendums.
As regards the four outcomes, I do not wish to be as nasty as my noble friend Lord Ewing but there was a general election and I believe the population of Scotland and Wales did pronounce to a moderate degree on the matter. I ask whether the party opposite will accept categorically the outcome of the referendums when they

101
occur. I take it that my noble friend will say that we certainly shall. Given the nature of the argument and the way in which certain Members of the Committee have spoken, do I understand that we need have no doubt whatever about that? I do not believe that the question of the date is the most important problem that has ever confronted your Lordships' House. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Ewing that we must have ample time for debate. On the other hand, without boasting intellectually, I do not believe that months and months are required for even the thickest of us to absorb the issues. I want to know whether the party opposite will accept the outcome because that is quite fundamental to what we are about. If there is doubt about whether it accepts the referendums and their outcome, I do not know why Members of the Committee opposite are wasting our time.
Lord Tebbit: Before the noble Lord sits down, did he accept the outcome of the referendums last time? If so, why is he supporting all this again after the experience of 20 years ago?
Lord Peston: Yes, we did accept the outcomes last time. A great many years went by. I must remind the noble Lord that we were in opposition for quite a long time. I grew old during that period. There was a young man here originally. If the referendum goes our way, and if after 18 years the party opposite is back in power—and I do believe in the two parties taking it in turn—and it wishes to raise the issue again, although I shall not be around to listen, I believe that that would be perfectly in order.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to say a few words in relation to the interesting question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether the Government and Parliament will accept the result of the referendums or either of them. In my respectful submission, the constitutional position was stated correctly by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, as Leader of the House in the other place at the time of the 1970s referendums. He said that a referendum binds a government but it does not bind Parliament. He must have meant that it binds a government morally. It does not bind Parliament so long as we have parliamentary supremacy. It is a matter for Parliament to take into account and it is a completely novel doctrine that Parliament will be bound by the result of a referendum. We would be abnegating our responsibilities.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, advances an extremely novel political doctrine. He states that the constitution can be changed now but that, heigh-ho, if someone wants to change it at another time that is all right. The noble Lord referred to a period of 18 years, but one must remember Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah. He went from 95 to five, if I remember rightly. Why not change it in three years? If that is too short perhaps five years is all right. It is irresponsible to suggest that we should treat the constitution of the United Kingdom in this way. It is said that it is all
102
right to do it now and perhaps it can be changed again in 18 years. It is irresponsible of the Government to treat the constitution of the United Kingdom in this way. It is good and great and should be cherished and looked after.
Earl Russell: I regret to say that the noble Earl is incorrect in saying that this matter is unprecedented. We need only look at the history of Reform Bills in the 19th century. When my great-grandfather introduced one in 1832 he believed that it was final. He was wrong.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to say that even the thickest of us will be able to understand what is in the White Paper. The trouble is that the noble Lord is a very clever man. I do not believe that he has any idea what it is to be thick.
Lord Peston: I knew before I entered the Chamber that I should never have come here today or joined in this debate. I must inform the noble Lady that I have been teaching for 40 years and I know all there is to know about what it is to be thick.
Lord Sewel: I start by acknowledging the friendly and constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moved his amendment. I am afraid that I must tell him that normal service has been partially resumed from these Benches. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendment, sad as that may be to the noble Lord and his noble friends.
The Government are well apprised of the need to ensure adequate time between the publication of the White Paper and the vote on the referendum itself. We have made clear that the White Paper will be published and debated in this House before the Recess. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. That will come not after two months but about 20 years of consultation and debate certainly in Scotland and, albeit to a lesser extent, in Wales as well.
Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is he able to inform the House whether his undertaking means that noble Lords will be given the opportunity to debate the White Paper before the final passage of this Bill?
Lord Sewel: I add nothing further to my statement that the White Paper will be published and the debate will take place before the House rises.
A number of noble Lords referred to the lack of a gap between the Scottish and Welsh referendums. I believe that that is a matter to which we should properly return on later amendments. I acknowledge that we have not so far announced the dates of the two referendums. That is not the result of any desire to be obscure; it is based on a desire to be a little better informed about the date when this Bill is likely to receive Royal Assent. In that way we can ensure that there are early referendums consistent with providing adequate time for the necessary practical preparations to be put in place, for public debate on our proposals and for the referendum campaigns to galvanise the debate in the two countries.

103
The amendment that suggests the date 2nd October seems to me to be moved with a degree of mischievous frivolity, which is perhaps unintended. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may not have in his diary the fact that 2nd October falls during the Labour Party conference. I do not for a moment claim that this degree of frivolity equals anything like that exhibited in another place when this Bill was discussed, but it makes the point about the difficulty of taking the date of 2nd October. I believe that the very powerful point made by my noble friend Lady Ramsay underlines the total unsuitability of focusing on one particular date. Quite simply, it is the wrong date.
We fully intend to hold the referendums before the major party conferences. However tempting and seductive noble Lords opposite may be, I will not however be pressed into setting a date for the referendums at this stage. One of the main reasons for that is that it is not yet clear when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. In our view it would be premature at this stage to speculate on possible dates.
It has been indicated that perhaps this amendment is a probing amendment. If I may take it in the spirit of a probing amendment, I happily undertake that when we return to consider the Bill at a later stage—Report stage on the basis of the currently envisaged timetable—the Government will inform noble Lords of the proposed dates for publication of the White Papers and the holding of the referendums. I hope that noble Lords can wait just that little bit longer and accept the undertaking that I have given in the helpful spirit in which it is offered.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer one question that has not yet been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Peston? Supposing the Scots vote for a Scottish parliament but against the tartan tax, what will the Government do?
Lord Sewel: Having decided on a process that involves consulting the people, it would be perverse to turn our heads away from the judgment of the people.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord will appreciate, I have always considered that the more important time in relation to this debate is not when the Bill finally completes its passage through your Lordships' House and Parliament but the period which elapses from the publication of the White Paper to the date of the referendum. Clearly, that is the document on which any serious and rational debate will proceed in Scotland. I shall not rehearse the problems about serious professional organisations in Scotland trying to study that paper during August. Do I understand correctly that it is only at Report stage that we will be told the date of the publication of the White Paper? Further, do I understand correctly that the referendum will be before the party conferences? Otherwise stated, it seems to me that both could take place during
104
September. Am I right in understanding that 4th September is already the Government's preferred date? If that is the case, is that a reasonable period?
Lord Sewel: The noble and learned Lord seeks to seduce me. I have said that I will not be seduced. I have made it clear that I shall remain virtuous. I will go through it again. On the basis of the current timetable, I give the undertaking that the Government fully expect to come to the House by Report stage and indicate the date of publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum.
Lord Tebbit: It seems to me that this debate takes on an extraordinarily unreal air. Quite clearly, the noble Lord is now aware of the date on which he expects the White Paper to be published. Why can he not tell us? He has informed noble Lords that he will tell them when Report stage is reached, but it is unlikely that there is anything in the discussion on this Bill that will affect consideration of when the White Paper is to be published. What has happened to the past attachment of the party in government to freedom of information? Somewhere within the noble Lord's department is a document bearing a date. Why should we not know what it is? That is not a matter affecting state security. It may affect relationships within the Labour Party—between Ministers and their Back Benchers—which I understand are a little turbulent at times, but surely he could tell us that. If his detestation of open government is such that he is unwilling to do so, perhaps he could bring himself to tell us what he defines as the meaning, in this context, of the words "adequate time". Is "adequate time" one week, 10 weeks, or 12 weeks? Surely it is not unreasonable that, when a Minister is asked what is "adequate time", he should tell us. He must know. If he does not know, he could not use the words. If he does know, why should he conceal from us the meaning which he attaches to them?
Earl Russell: The noble Lord said that somewhere in the Minister's office there is a document with a date on. How does he know that?
Lord Tebbit: Having been in government for eight years, I know those things as of experience. I can recollect many occasions when I have had documents with dates on, and for my own reasons at times I would rather not have exposed them. But I can see no good reason why we should not now know that date and the meaning which the Minister puts to the words "adequate time".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord has only to look at the clock to know why the Minister cannot answer. If we go on like this, it will be 1999 before we pass the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has drawn his presence to my attention, perhaps I might return to what he said. He described the amendment as trivial. Has he looked at the amendment

105
in the name of his noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie to which we shall come later? When we come to that will he explain how it can possibly be a serious amendment when the date upon which the referendum is to be held is considered to be trivial?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: At least my noble friend's amendment will be interesting without being nasty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing nasty about my amendment. I am trying to help the Government by pinning a date to this important referendum. I shall not hurry up as I am being urged to do by the deputy unpaid Chief Whip for the government Benches who is sitting along the row from me.
We have had an interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has tempted me, it will be interesting to see the Liberal Benches putting down the amendment that Mr. James Wallace put down in the other place and took to the vote, because he thought it was serious enough. I notice that it has failed to appear on the Order Paper in this place. That is a pity, because with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, it was a serious point that was addressed by Mr. James Wallace. Unless I am persuaded otherwise in an hour or so, I do not believe that the amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie can be described as serious.
This is a serious point. We have drawn some interesting points from the Minister and from the Benches opposite. I should have known that the basic reason for not having the referendum on 2nd October is that it is during the Labour Party conference. It is a pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, did not have the hymn sheet adjusted, because is it not ridiculous that the Labour Party conference is being held at a time when some of her Jewish fellow citizens will be unable to go to it because they have more serious business to do?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I wish to make two points with which I believe the noble Lord will agree. First, I made a serious point about the Jewish New Year and the issue of voting. Secondly, there is big difference between conferences and meetings to which people of any religion can decide whether to go, the demands and rules of their own religion, and holding a national referendum in Scotland and Wales on a day when it would be known that practising members of the Jewish community would be unable to vote. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that there is a big difference.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may give help and advice to the noble Baroness; I suspect that in those circumstances she would find that people would be entitled to postal votes, which would solve the problem. Perhaps I might advise the noble Baroness not to dig too great a hole for herself. It is possible that the Government may be forced to have a referendum on 2nd October, if the White Paper's publication is delayed and it does not appear on the date which still appears to be unknown. I shall leave that aside. I should be happy
106
to return with an amendment for 9th October, despite the fact that that is during the Conservative Party conference.
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone: That is my birthday.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble and learned friend indicates that that is his birthday. That is an even better reason for having it on 9th October. I shall pick up one or two of the points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, to whom it is always interesting to listen, suggested that the amendments were destructive. I do not believe that they are.
Lord Peston: I did not mean that these amendments were, but unless I missed the point I felt that several of the later amendments did not have the constructive quality that I would normally associate with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: None of the amendments in my name would prevent the Government from having a referendum on 2nd October or at any time in September, as is their current plan. The noble Lord asked whether we would accept the outcome. He was well pulled up by my noble friend who asked him whether the Labour Party had accepted the outcome of previous referendums. My recollection is that the Labour Party continued to campaign against the European Community long after the 1975 referendum, for example, was decided. I do not want to go into that. We shall shortly be having a debate on whether or not the referendum should be advisory. That might be an important debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, could contribute.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the idea of the referendum was that it was advisory and could not bind Parliament. That is a serious point which we should address in the general context of referendums, not just this one. The Committee will appreciate that I shall be returning later to the general question of referendums and the rules that we should have for them.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy reminded the Committee that three months' notice was given on the previous occasion. If I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, a little, that may be why the Labour Party wants to make the period as short as possible: to see whether it can win this one, because on the previous one it did not do as well as it thought it was going to do.
Some Welsh points were made in relation to Amendment No. 23. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made an interesting contribution. We will no doubt return to the point. Just to establish the position— if I understand it—the noble Lord holds his fellow Welshmen in such low regard that he does not believe that they will be able to consider the issue while the Scottish referendum is going on because of the din about the Scottish referendum that will be coming from north of the Border. The Welsh will not be able to block off

107
the Scottish aspect and concentrate on the Welsh bit. I have a great deal more confidence than the noble Lord in the ability of the Welsh to see through the whole proposition.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think that the Welsh people will see through the remarks that the noble Lord is making now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If they read them, I hope that they will see that the point that I am making is in defence of them and against the noble Lord, who seems to think that they will be unable to consider this issue at the same time as the Scots. The only temptation for having the Welsh referendum on a different day is to allow all those excellent Labour MPs from Wales who have not signed up to this scheme the opportunity freely to express their views away from Westminster and the power of the Labour Party Whips down the corridor. That is an issue that is running at the other end of this Palace, and perhaps we need not go into it too much here.
We have been told that the Labour Party has been thinking about this for 18 years. There has been this constitutional convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, is a chairman of it. The noble Lord Ewing of Kirkford, is a former chairman of it. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, was its chairman. They spent hours and weeks on it. Acres of trees must have been cut down for it. It has been reported copiously in the press over the past six or seven years, I suspect. Yet, here we are and the Government still do not know whether they have a White Paper to present to us. The only conclusion that one can reach, is that they do not have a White Paper ready. I can understand if it is at the printers or at the proof stage—at least one can have some idea of it—but the Minister said that on Report he would tell us the date of its publication.
It may be of great interest to your Lordships to know that that puts it well into the 20s of July. I presume that we will have a week, with a weekend included, to consider the contents of the White Paper before we come to debate it. Therefore, those Members of the Committee who have arranged their holidays for the first week in August, and whose holiday plans I have attempted to protect elsewhere in the Marshalled List, may well have to cancel their holidays and be here to debate the White Paper. I do not find that satisfactory.
I believed that we would see the White Paper before the Report stage, not because its detail should be debated before then but, looking at a sensible timetable, because we could debate it before the end of July, which would allow both Houses of Parliament to rise. I am disappointed that the noble Lord is telling us that the publication of the White Paper is further away than I thought. I hope that it will appear around the Report stage, preferably before.
I believe that the noble Lord said that he would tell us the referendum date then. Being mindful of the many lessons I received at the knee of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the importance of primary as opposed to secondary legislation, if on Report the Government know when they want the referendum, perhaps they will table their own amendment along the lines of mine, inserting
108
their date. Flexibility is not needed for a one-off referendum. I would have accepted the noble Earl's argument if he had been talking about referendums in general, but we are debating a specific Bill. It was part of the Labour Party's manifesto, which we know is pretty Holy Writ, that a referendum is to be held in the autumn. I do not see why 2nd October is such a bad day, but I shall not put it to the test. I should hate to deprive the Benches opposite of the pleasures of the Labour Party conference by keeping them in Scotland and Wales attempting to propound the arguments in favour of a "Yes" vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I hope that on Report the Government will bring forward an amendment to primary legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State for Scotland may").
The noble Lord said: The amendment invites the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to say a few words about how we shall know about the date of the referendum and how it is to be enacted. I have suggested a way in which he can do that. As this is a probing amendment, perhaps he can explain why he has chosen to do it by Order in Council as opposed to my suggestion that the Secretary of State for Scotland should make an order.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, fancied a visit to Balmoral during August in order to attend a meeting of the Council to deal with the issue. I suggest that the matter can be dealt with simply by the Secretary of State making the order or, as I have suggested, by the Minister coming forward on Report, or even at Third Reading, and tabling an amendment which lays down in primary legislation the date or dates on which we shall have the two referendums. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: I am somewhat at a loss as regards the distinction which the noble Lord is trying to make between the phrases "Her Majesty may by Order in Council" and "the Secretary of State for Scotland may". If at this stage he is laying the grounds for an argument that it would be appropriate to dispense with the orders and to incorporate them into the primary legislation, I am able to respond to him. At this stage I seek that degree of clarification from him.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not seeking to do that; it arises later in a substantive amendment which brings them all together. I am simply inviting the noble Lord to tell me why it has to be an Order in Council. If he is saying to me that it is tied into the other orders—and I suggested a way in which we might deal with them—I am happy to leave the matter there and withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("a") and insert ("an advisory").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will notice that the amendment is starred, although I submitted it last Thursday in the early evening when the House was still sitting. Apparently, it became stuck in the tabling process and was found and rescued only yesterday morning after I telephoned to find out what had happened to it. Although Members will have seen it only for the first time today, it is simple and a probing amendment.
On Second Reading I said that I understood that the 1975 referendum on staying in the EC and the 1979 referendums in England and Wales were advisory to Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, commented on that today in respect of an earlier amendment. Can the Minister confirm that this referendum is also advisory in character? Is it intended that the Government, having obtained the approval of Parliament, should decide on appropriate action when the referendum in Scotland has taken place? That would be important if the result were close or if there were a low turnout.
However, the Government have made it clear that the object of a pre-legislative referendum is to obtain a green light from the electorate in Scotland before spending much valuable parliamentary time and enlisting the energy and labour of many civil servants on what has to be a complex and intricate scheme for a new parliament. Of course, a referendum after legislation is passed, as happened previously, would be preferable and more indicative of considered opinion in Scotland. I hope that that is still an option.
The Government's reply might be that the result will not be close. The media and opinion polls in Scotland indicate that about 60 per cent. of the Scottish electorate is in favour of what is known as devolution—the general idea. I can remember a similar situation in 1976 and 1977 when about 70 per cent. of the population was reported as being in favour of the idea of devolution. In the 1979 referendum on the Scotland Act, the legislation that had been passed, the percentage in favour was only 33 per cent., with 31 per cent. against. The Labour Government of that day had approved the insertion of a 40 per cent. threshold in their Scotland Act, so under their own terms it had to be repealed. As regards this Bill, it appears that a simple majority, however small, is to be effective.
In those circumstances, I suggest that the status of the referendum should be advisory to Parliament. There are proposals in Amendments Nos. 50 and 83 on how the results might be treated. We can discuss those in due course. However, they appear much better than the threshold provisions in the Labour Government's 1978 Scotland Act. They apply to the number of electors who have voted in the referendum and not to a percentage of the electorate. The electorate is always difficult to assess precisely owing to deaths, moves and other factors.
I am not pressing for the word "advisory" to be included in the Bill. I shall be satisfied if the Government make it clear that that will be the status of the referendum. I am very glad to see the noble Lord,
110
Lord Kirkhill, in his place because I should like to record how extremely helpful he was in 1976 and 1977 when he was Minister of State at the Scottish Office and had to deal on behalf of the Government with the Scotland Act and the subsequent orders dealing with the referendum. He did accept a number of proposals, including some of mine, particularly, as I mentioned earlier, the minimum interval of six weeks. So in those days in opposition our proposals were not always rejected, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggests. We were successful in getting quite a lot of amendments accepted and I would like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made a great contribution to our debates and he was prepared to accept a number of our proposals. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is not the intention to press for the word "advisory" to be put into the Bill. Having listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, I think his anxieties are reflected by what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has already said. At Second Reading, in col. 1113, he said, accurately:
"Parliament will of course remain sovereign. It will be for the Government and, ultimately, Parliament to reflect on the result of the referendums."—[Official Report, 17/6/97; col. 1113.]
"Reflection", I take it, encompasses "advisory" and so there appears to be really nothing between the Committee so far on this.
Lord Kirkhill: I wonder if I might intervene very briefly. I had not intended to do so, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned me in his remarks, and they were indeed complimentary remarks, or so I take them to be. Perhaps I may say to the Committee quite quickly that 20 years ago I was faced with a significant phalanx, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Earls, Lord Onslow and Lord Lauderdale, and numerous other Peers too many to mention. I was absolutely terrified, and I gave in far too readily, I think.
Lord Renton: The importance of this matter depends very much upon the view that we take of abstentions. Votes on a referendum in which there is merely a vote for or against are different from those votes which take place in a parliamentary election, when there may be at least three parties contesting with each other and a number of candidates involved. Abstentions are therefore of less importance on those occasions, but in a referendum, the essence of which is whether one should vote for or against or not vote at all, the effect of abstaining is exactly the same as voting against. May I give some figures in order to illustrate this? What happened in 1979 bears this out.
Let us suppose that 35 per cent. of the people of Scotland or of Wales vote for a parliament, and supposing 30 per cent. vote against, there would be perhaps another 20 per cent. who might feel that it is not necessary to vote because they are not voting "for". Therefore we would find the position that only 35 per cent. of the people were in favour and 50 per cent. were in

111
fact against but did not all trouble to vote: 30 per cent. did trouble to vote and 20 per cent. abstained. That is a very unsatisfactory way of assuming that the introduction of a new parliament should take place. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has made a very important point. We must consider the effect of abstentions.
Lord Howie of Troon: I sincerely hope that the Committee will not be beguiled by that argument. If an abstention is to be thought of as a vote against, the person who abstains can in fact vote against. It is not difficult to do: he goes along and makes his mark. If on the other hand he abstains he has abdicated, and therefore his opinion is of no account. It should not be considered as a vote against. I notice that my old friend Lord Renton shakes his head: he can shake his head until it falls off but it makes no difference. The man who abstains has abdicated and he has given up his right to be counted, and certainly to be counted as being against. If he is against he can go and put his mark down like the rest of us, who are actually for.
Lord Crickhowell: I should like to follow up that particular point, which is a very important one, although perhaps more important to the electorate than to your Lordships. A firm message has to be delivered to those who do not want the Government's proposals: on this occasion they have to turn out and vote. It is a message that those who are against the proposals of the Government, both for Scotland and Wales, have to deliver loudly and clearly.
I want to make a slightly different point. A White Paper will be put before us in due course. As the Bill is at present drafted, in Wales at any rate there is simply a referendum question about a Welsh assembly. An assembly is a pretty vague sort of organisation. We shall have from the Government in due course some detail of what that assembly is to do, its powers and their limitations, and its duties and functions. But quite clearly a lot more will emerge when the actual Bill setting up the assembly is put in place.
It is important to realise that even if there is a vote in favour of setting up an assembly that should not preclude Parliament from disagreeing about the details subsequently put forward by the Government. I can just see what will happen if the proposal for an assembly is carried. A Bill will be presented to us. We will be told that the Government have the approval of the people and it would be quite improper to disagree with any of the individual clauses or component parts of what is put before the House. We need to nail that one pretty early. It may well be that the Government will get a "Yes" vote for the general proposition that they have put forward, but the Government must understand that while we may well accept—indeed it would be correct to accept—the will of the people on the general proposition, they should not subsequently argue against
112
the right of Parliament to deal very precisely with the detail and to disagree with the individual components if these do not seem to be practicable or sensible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the four Scottish questions it will be even more important, it seems to me, for the Government to make it plain to people that this is an advisory referendum. They have already said that it is and they need to make this plain, whether or not that is in the Bill. There may be great difficulty in interpreting what people want from the four different voting choices, as my noble friend Lord Mackay enumerated at the beginning. One could imagine a very difficult decision having to be made when it comes to interpreting where the strength of opinion lies and whether in fact there is a majority for anything, or what there is a majority for. If my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy intends to withdraw the amendment—and from what he said I think he probably does—it is extremely important for the Government to undertake to make it plain again and again that this is an advisory referendum and that people are free to interpret it as they wish. They should do so if that is their intention.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to express my support for my noble friend. In effect, what we have done is to start speaking to Amendment No. 39 which has not been grouped. Any question of something being advisory, be it in the Bill or be it understood in the manner proposed, is terribly important. The way in which the reflection, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is translated into a decision is very much assisted by Amendment No. 39. In due course, when we come to deal with that amendment—I shall not spend time on it now because it speaks for itself—the hope is that consideration will be given to that fact.
Lord Stewartby: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is no longer in the Chamber because I should like to respond to the question he posed during the debate on the previous amendment. It touches on the question of the validity of the referendum and how it should be received, not only by Parliament but also in a sense of how much moral commitment there may be as a result of it.
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy put his finger on a very important point; namely, that there is a difference between a referendum held before legislation is brought in and debated and one which is introduced afterwards as a validating mechanism in terms of public opinion. I can only speak for myself—and I do not know whether my noble friends will agree with me—but I would regard the results of any referendum held in advance of legislation as being less valid than one which was held afterwards.
Therefore, I would not necessarily say that I would accept the result of that referendum as being binding in the moral sense. I shall not go into the constitutional issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, although I do not dissent from him in that respect. However, if we say that we pay regard to public

113
opinion and that we accept the validity of a properly conducted test of that opinion, then, even if there were no change to the legislation after it had passed through Parliament and even if that legislation precisely reflected the terms of the White Paper, I do not believe that the effect of a referendum would be the same before and afterwards. I say that because the purpose of the referendum afterwards would be to validate a process which would be much more thorough and which would undoubtedly have been discussed in greater detail, with the implications being much better understood by all those who took part in that debate. Therefore, if the vote is "Yes", I would not regard a referendum held in advance of legislation as being more than an indication that there is support in public opinion for bringing forward the legislation.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I should like to express a certain feeling of sympathy for the Government as regards the amendment. It is perfectly true to say that a referendum can only be an advisory mechanism. Parliament is sovereign, but a referendum is not sovereign in that sense: Parliament will still have the duty to scrutinise the Bill in detail. However, if the amendment is accepted, it seems to me that people will start to suspect that the Government are moving away from accepting the relevance and importance of the referendum.
If the Government do introduce a referendum measure and do in fact hold a referendum, clearly the moral obligation on them will be very great. There seems to me to be a danger that people will start to believe that the Government are resiling from recognising that moral obligation, while in fact they are quite correct to recognise that this referendum can only be an advisory one so far as concerns Parliament as a whole.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made a very interesting point and one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred in our first debate; namely, that in our constitutional position referendums cannot bind Parliament. However, if we are to go down the road of referendums—and this is perhaps a rather wider debate than just this particular referendum—we must address ourselves to the question of whether referendums should bind Parliament. Whether or not they bind governments is, of course, another question of, dare I say, lesser importance. Government can feel bound by a referendum but Parliament could still refuse to follow the Government's advice and decide that it was not bound by the referendum decision.
Post-legislative referendums are rather easier to position in the constitutional arrangement because Parliament has decided on a piece of legislation, whatever it may be, and it has then decided to ask the people, "What do you think about this piece of legislation?". My recollection of the 1979 Act was that the relevant clause said, essentially, that if the Scottish people agreed with it, then it would be enacted and carried out; but if they did not agree, then it would not be. The position there was quite clear. If my memory
114
serves me correctly, both Houses of Parliament had debated the issue over two or three years and, quite clearly, had come to a decision, an Act of Parliament had been passed and the question was then put to the people. There is a good argument for saying that, in those circumstances, the results of the referendum really ought to be binding. If we are to travel down the road of having referendums, then, as I said on Second Reading, this is one of the many issues which I believe the Government must address in a single referendum Act so that the rules are clearly set down.
However, pre-legislative referendums are different. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, just said, Parliament has still to consider the detail. Therefore, there seems to me to be a conflict between our concept of parliamentary democracy and of Parliament being sovereign, and the concept of having referendums. But the matter is not resolved when one considers what I understand is becoming Holy Writ in this Chamber; namely, that every time we ask a question of the Government we are referred to the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, I thought that I would refer to that document. All it tells me is this:
"As soon as possible after the election, we will enact legislation to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to vote in separate referendums on our proposals, which will be set out in white papers. These referendums will take place not later than the autumn of 1997. A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will be the majority required".
We shall return later to some of these issues.
"Popular endorsement will strengthen the legitimacy of our proposals and speed their passage through Parliament".
Although I can read between the lines, the document does not actually tell me that the Government will consider the results to be mandatory. Indeed, they are not necessarily mandatory.
We should perhaps look at the experience of those countries in which referendums or plebiscites are held. I have in mind two in particular. If we consider the position of Switzerland which has very much built its whole constitutional arrangement on referendums, it is clear that there is absolutely no doubt as to the legal position of a referendum held in that country. There are a number of mechanisms to consider, some of which are quite interesting and important from our point of view as regards how other people run referendums. From the details of the first example contained in the booklet that I have with me, it is interesting to note that they relate to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that:
"There is nothing to prevent another referendum being requested as soon as one has been held. Many laws have been defeated only to be approved a second time round".
However, the important points are as follows:
"All types of referendum are binding in their outcome. No referendum can be overruled unless by another referendum. The Swiss Supreme Court cannot declare any referendum decision unconstitutional".
I am grateful to my friend Professor Ross Harper who outlined the Swiss position in that booklet. Those are the important aspects of the Swiss constitutional arrangement. It is perfectly clear that whatever a Swiss referendum is about, the result is binding. Everyone in

115
Switzerland who enters a referendum campaign knows the rules of the game; namely, the result of a referendum is enacted.
In the United States of America there is a slightly different arrangement in that there are non-binding referendum ballots. Those Members of the Committee who take even a passing interest in American elections will know that a number of propositions are printed on the ballot paper with which people may agree or disagree. As I understand the position, those can be overruled by the courts, although that may still be a matter of dispute in California. However, the measures are certainly not binding in the states where they are held. I contrast the position in Switzerland, which has rigid, binding rules as regards its referendums, and the United States which does not.
On Second Reading I said that I thought the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums should be compulsory reading for those Members of the Committee who are taking part in this debate. I certainly found it interesting. The report states that,
"Whether a referendum is regarded as advisory or mandatory is a political issue".
I ask the Government to give me their views on that. The report continues,
"A referendum can be mandatory only to the extent that a Government binds itself to accept the result. That would depend on the referendum issue, and possibly on factors such as the turnout or the size of the majority … Although a Government could commit itself, Parliament could not be bound by the result".
I do not argue with that statement. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, expressed that in his own words, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, earlier this afternoon. However, a problem arises with regard to the political situation in Scotland because the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were partners, has decided upon the interesting constitutional arrangement that sovereignty resides with the Scottish people. If sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, surely that means that the referendum and any referendum ought to be binding.
The Government may not accept that sovereignty resides with the Scottish people. Some of us recall Mr. Blair's visit to Scotland during the election when he "pooh-poohed" that concept pretty bluntly and said that sovereignty resided with him. To be fair to him, I think that was a slip of the tongue. I believe he was being collective and that he meant to say that sovereignty resided with him as a Member of Parliament together with his fellow Members of Parliament. Perhaps he was being a little slipshod in his language when he said that it resided with him. Perhaps certain Labour Members of Welsh constituencies are beginning to feel that sovereignty resides with him, but that is an aside.
I am not a constitutional expert and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to reply to this amendment. I speak in terms of a pupil asking a master for some advice on this matter. There are other noble and learned Lords in the Chamber who know a great deal more about these matters than I do. I may be
116
over-simplifying the matter but if the Scottish Constitutional Convention is correct, and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have decided that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, it seems to me they are saying that the results of referendums must be treated as mandatory. That seems to me to conflict with the position held by the Houses of Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will address that matter.
My final point on the matter of advisory or mandatory referendums is the following. If we are to have many referendums in the future, if there is a lowish turnout in a referendum—that is a subject I shall address later— and if the proposition is barely agreed to and the Government decide in their wisdom (and more particularly Parliament decides) that they will not accept the result of the referendum and that they will not enact the result of the referendum, I dare to say that I suspect there will be a considerable backlash against Parliament. I believe people would say, "There they are; they are just ignoring us as usual. They ask our advice but when it does not suit them they just kick it into the long grass and ignore it". It would be a serious matter if we got ourselves into such a position. The position would be helped a little if it were made clear that the result of every referendum was to be advisory and that Parliament would not be bound by it. However, I believe that that would help only a little because, if the people have spoken and Parliament decides to ignore what they have said, that would cause a great deal of trouble and Parliament would be at the receiving end of criticism from the people and particularly from the press.
Those Members of the Committee who have ever sat in another place will know what I am talking about on my next point. Those of us who have had to seek election know that one of the constant questions we are asked is why we do not hold a referendum on the death penalty. I do not wish to discuss the death penalty, but we all know that after horrific events have taken place if a referendum on the death penalty were held there would be a majority in favour of it. Every Member of the Committee who has ever had to argue with a difficult constituent on that matter knows how difficult it is to tell him or her that one has to leave that decision to Members of Parliament. I shall not discuss the Burkean analysis of the duties of Members of Parliament, but that is a difficult argument to put across to people. The position would be made even more difficult if we had asked people their views in a referendum and then decided not to accept the result of that referendum. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will address those important points when he replies to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I hope he will discuss issues wider than the referendums on Scotland and Wales and that he will discuss other referendums that may be held in the future. I hope he will give us an inkling on the Government's thoughts on these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has moved this amendment because he

117
most helpfully said that it was a probing amendment; in other words, that the matter requires clarification. The clarification was readily to hand—not for the first time— from his namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who in my judgment accurately described the constitutional position.
The referendums to be held in Scotland and Wales will indeed he advisory, in the same way as every other referendum in the United Kingdom has been advisory. The well-known principle is that Parliament cannot tie its own hands. I believe that all Members of the Committee who have spoken have made that point. After all, what we do today we can change tomorrow. The Government's position is quite plain and I repeat it. It was made plain by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on an earlier occasion, as has been mentioned. No referendum Act can require Parliament to do or not to do anything. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, reminded us, the Scotland Act placed a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay an order to repeal the Act if the threshold were not reached in the referendum. However, as a constitutional matter, Parliament could have chosen to reject the order and commence the Scotland Act anyway.
I recognise entirely that the conflict between the general public and both Houses of Parliament could become quite acute in certain situations, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, noted. When the results of the referendums are to hand, it is for Parliament to reflect on them and it is for Parliament to act as it sees fit. It is not necessary—as most Members of the Committee have indicated—to state in the Bill that the referendum in Scotland or in Wales is to be advisory. Under our constitutional arrangements it could be nothing else.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope I may speak briefly. This may seem, relatively speaking, to be an unimportant amendment to this Bill. I wholly agree with the noble Lord's classic Diceyan statement as regards the sovereignty of Parliament. What troubles me, however— as my noble friend Lord Mackay indicated— is that in taking forward the development of its ideas the Scottish Constitutional Convention repeatedly referred to the concept of sovereignty resting with the people in Scotland. It expressed that in a way that I do not think Dicey would have done. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is present and he may correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that it derived its authority for that assertion from the famous dictum of Lord President Cooper in the famous case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate in 1953. The issue involved what was to appear on pillar-boxes—whether it was Queen Elizabeth II or simply Queen Elizabeth. I quote from it because we must have a clear understanding in Scotland as to whether or not it is advisory. Otherwise some people may be seriously misled about the real consequences. In Session Cases at page 411, Lord Cooper said:
"The principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced
118
them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament hut none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done".
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have some difficulty with much of what is set out in that paragraph. He may care to reflect on it.
I urge the Government to appreciate that there is a school of thought in Scotland that would not accept that a clear majority in a referendum in Scotland would be only advisory in effect. If we are to have a rational, sensible debate in Scotland on the matter, there should he no doubt in people's minds—I do not refer simply to the view that I express or that of the noble Lord—that it is the view of Parliament.
That is important in this respect. If there is to be an inalienable expression of the sovereignty of the Scottish people in a referendum, it would have serious implications when we subsequently discuss a Bill to establish a parliament or assembly. If the outcome were a yes vote, it would he wholly presumptuous and wrong of either House of Parliament to attempt to interfere with that expression of view.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, is leading himself into very deep waters. The Cooper judgment must be taken to have a great deal of force. If we wish to see how much force, we should read carefully the text of the Act of Union of 1707. A large amount of the Act lays out things which the Westminster Parliament may not do. It is hard to reconcile that with the Coke and Blackstone doctrine of sovereignty as we have been used to operating it this side of the Border.
However, in these matters I think that one should accept Aristotle's maxim that it is the mark of the educated man to look for no further certainty in any matter than the nature of the matter will admit. In those circumstances, I think that we may be unwise to pursue this matter any further.
Lord Hughes: I wish to speak on the point as regards whether the matter is advisory or otherwise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, stated well that Parliament cannot be bound by a referendum. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, put his finger on the point. Parliament cannot be bound by a referendum, but a government can be bound by a referendum; and a government with a majority of 179 in the House of Commons is most unlikely to fly in the face of what the people of Scotland have decided in the referendum.
We shall have further debate on this issue on Amendment No. 39. But so much rubbish has been talked about what took place in 1979. A majority was in favour of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out that it was 33 per cent. to 31 per cent. However, we had the extraordinary position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is usually so logical, that if 64 per cent. take part in the vote the remaining 36 per cent. must all be assumed to be against the proposals.

119
Let us take the last election in 1992. The Government gained 42 per cent. of the vote. On a 75 per cent. poll, that was 31.5 per cent. of the electorate. But no one in government at that time said that the 25 per cent. who did not vote were against the majority.
I suggest that we may discuss this further on Amendment No. 39. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is right: it can be binding on the Government who put the referendum before the people. As a loyal supporter of the present Government, I shall be most unhappy if at the end of the day they turn down what the people of Scotland have said, whether yes or no.
As regards sovereignty being with the people, that is an old concept. Three hundred years ago Mary was not Queen of Scotland; she was Queen of Scots. Even then the issue was that sovereignty rested with the people. Parliament may have changed that. It does not alter the concept but it alters the way in which it is worked out.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about the difference between a referendum before the Bill was passed and a referendum after it was passed. He implied that a referendum before the Bill must be advisory, but a referendum after the Bill must be obligatory. Whichever way we want it, we must accept that the position is clear: that it is advisory so far as concerns Parliament. But we must go to the other issue: that a government which have put the referendum before the people must accept that it is mandatory on them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As six noble Lords have strayed on to the point about the turn-out proportion of those eligible to vote, referred to in Amendment No. 39, which is relevant to this amendment, does the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wish to deal with the issue in outline now or does he wish to defer this important matter until later?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think it proper to deal with the matter in its appropriate place. Although I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that sometimes the debate strays a little, unfortunately I have neither a crook nor sheepdog with me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy decides what to do, I wonder whether I can tempt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, into addressing one of the questions I put to him, to which perhaps wisely he decided to give a body swerve. I refer to the issue about sovereignty which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It is important although I do not think that it is of central importance to the position about referendums.
If the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which his party was the main player, stated clearly—I do not think anyone has denied that it stated clearly—that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, how does that fit in with the proposition that a referendum cannot bind Parliament? How does it fit in with Mr. Blair's assertion that sovereignty rests with him? Perhaps I can tempt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. If he does not
120
wish to dip his toes into the complexities of Scottish politics, perhaps his noble friend Lord Sewel may wish to give us his advice on this matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am being encouraged into temptation. I cannot swim, and my noble friend Lord Sewel does not wish to.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.
First, the question of abstentions was raised by my noble friend Lord Renton and by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I have known him for many years in another place and here. He has told us that as he has been resident for some time in England he will not be able to take part in the referendum. I consider that the Scottish people—as they are referred to—would be incomplete without the noble Lord, Lord Howie. So I am sorry that he and others will not be able to take part in the referendum.
I referred to Amendments Nos. 50 and 83, and the general debate on abstentions can be continued under those amendments. If the principles are accepted, the numbers of those who voted for and against will assume greater importance than they did in 1979 and greater importance than any abstentions. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also referred to the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said something with which I agree. It is that there is a moral obligation on the Government who put forward a Bill and arranged a referendum. The noble Lord agreed with the whole purpose of my amendment, which is to obtain confirmation by a government spokesman that the referendum is advisory to Parliament.
In the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, had to reply to many points and he did so very adequately, in my opinion. But he did not deal with this matter, which I mentioned in my speech. That was one of the reasons for ensuring that it was raised today.
My noble friend Lord Mackay referred to the 40 per cent. threshold in the Labour Government's Bill of 1978. I have the Act here and can tell him that Section 85(2) required the Secretary of State to repeal the Act if the threshold was not reached.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his reply. He has given a clear statement as I understand it, and it was in order to obtain such a statement that I put down the amendment. It is especially needed because of the possible conflict which has appeared a great deal in the Scottish press and media, but which may not be apparent to all Members of the Committee. It is the conflict between the two concepts: first, the sovereignty of this Parliament and, secondly, that sovereignty in Scotland lies with what is called "the Scottish people". Therefore, this debate and the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. line 6, leave out ("in Scotland").
The noble Earl said: I wish to take this amendment with Amendments Nos. 9, 27, 32, 42, 84 and 87. It may not appear clear to everyone why in Amendment No. 3 I propose to:
"leave out ('in Scotland')".
However, it becomes clear when we reach Amendment No. 42, which states that any electoral area should be the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have been rather depressed by the debate, not only by remarks from the Government side but also, I regret to say, from my own Front Bench. One would assume from the arguments that the alteration of the United Kingdom constitution is solely of interest to the Scots and the Welsh. That is not true. When the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, intervened to say: "All Scots say that this must happen", I thought to myself: "How narrow-minded the Scots have become compared with the days of the Edinburgh Enlightenment, of Locke, Hume and Adam Smith". They were outward looking. But no, there is a kind of "whinge fest" going on north of Hadrian's Wall. We English—and I use the word advisedly—consider it is also our United Kingdom. My country goes from the borders of Loch Foyle to Cape Wrath, to Lands End, to the mouth of the Thames and to the edges of Norfolk. That is my country. It is the country of those who live in Aberdeen and those who live in Caerphilly. But for some reason, the majority of the United Kingdom's citizens will not be allowed any say in their constitution. That is sloppy thinking. It also means that when the chickens of this devolution come home to roost and the English wake up, the Scots and the Welsh will be much more unfairly blamed than they are now.
It has been brought to my attention—and I admit that this is the yob end of nationalism—that youths are now going around draped in the cross of St. George saying: "Something the Union Jack". That is a sign of incipient English nationalism and I had hoped that I would never see it, but the Scots and the Welsh—though the Welsh to a lesser extent than the Scots—complain so much. I give an example. I happened to be in Scotland only a month ago, talking to a charming Scots doctor. He said: "Of course we don't have any waiting lists in Scotland because we get 12.5 per cent. more money per patient in Scotland than you do in England". I think no one in the United Kingdom would begrudge differential resources, but if you have cakes to be eaten, differential resources and separate parliaments, as night follows day you will set the Scots against the English.
If we were to have a straightforward referendum—and I shall come to it later—on whether Scotland wishes to be independent, that would be a different matter altogether. If the Scots do not wish to be a member of the club, that is fair enough. But if you want to be a member of the club, the other members—the 87 per cent. of the other members—have a say in what the club's rules are.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a 70 per cent. turn-out in the referendum—not an unfair assumption; let us assume for the sake of argument
122
that 60 per cent. of the 70 per cent. are in favour and 40 per cent. against. That is 42 per cent. of the Scottish electorate or 4.2 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom deciding to ruin the British constitution. It is not a question of "Oh, rubbish!": it is a fact. That is the most depressing aspect; that we English are not allowed any say in what happens. That is why I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Earl Russell: The amendment is superficially plausible. It rests on a considerable series of misapprehensions. The noble Earl illustrated the first of the misapprehensions quite early in his speech when he began by saying, "We English", and said, "I use that word advisedly". Then he said, "My country goes to Cape Wrath". There is a certain tension between the two statements.
The Earl of Onslow: What I also said, advisedly, was that my country means that the person who lives in Aberdeen as a Scot feels, or should feel, towards the United Kingdom what I feel as an Englishman. That is the point I was making. I was not saying that England and Britain are the same thing. They are not.
Earl Russell: I entirely accept that point, to which I was coming. All I said was that there was a certain tension between the points, and that the noble Earl will not deny. There is here a real misunderstanding, especially south of the Border, about Britain. It was illustrated vividly by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, a couple of weeks ago. She said that Britain is a sovereign nation. That was two errors in two words—a peculiarly high strike rate, even for the noble Baroness.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will agree with me that Britain is not a nation. Britain is a union of several nations. I shall not particularise the number because I do not intend to debate Northern Ireland. Wales is clearly a nation; Scotland is clearly a nation. They have been independent nations; they are united by different processes. That is one of the aspects that puts the basic tension into the subject.
Britain is not only not a nation; it is not in fact in the Diceyan sense, a sovereign country. If one looks carefully at the Act of Union 1707—I re-read that Act with care only last week—one sees that it is not an incorporating union. It does not set up a single sovereign state. Above all, it does not set up a uniform system of law. That is one of the most important facts about the Act of Union with Scotland.
The union with Wales was based on conquest, but the union with Scotland was a union with a separate and equal sovereign state under a common authority. From the very beginning, the English always had very great difficulty absorbing that that was the case. Right back, immediately after the Union of 1603, Sir John Stanhope, Vice-Chamberlain of England, discovered to his utter horror that the king also had a vice-chamberlain of Scotland. He was so shocked and insulted by that information, that he refused to come to court for a period of six months.

123
That belief that there is a single sovereign nation is the basis of a great deal of the misunderstanding about the Union. If the Scots whinge, as the noble Earl put it, it is because they say that the type of union which has hitherto existed is not the type of union which the English believe it to be and that the English have in fact simply failed to recognise that there is a union of sovereign states on the basis of equality.
I passionately hope that the Union will continue. South of the Border we have learned a very great deal from it and I hope that we shall continue to do so. But it will not continue unless it is recognised that it is a union of equals and a union of sovereign states, each with its own dignity, rights, laws and pre-eminences.
I agree with the noble Earl that we can only have a union if it rests on a basis of consent. That is where there is a superficial plausibility about asking the English to vote in a referendum. But it appears to me to be clear that in both Wales and Scotland there is no consent to the existing system. So, were the English to vote for the existing system, they would be voting for something which, in effect, could only be imposed by a power of conquest exercised from Westminster. That is something to which I for one am not prepared to give my support, except in the event—which I do not expect, but anything can happen—that the people of Wales and Scotland should vote for it in a referendum. Should they vote for the status quo, then it would be an option.
But it is a convention that, when issues are put to the people in the clearest possible terms in a general election, we accept the result. In particular, it is a convention that we in this Chamber accept the result. So it is my belief that, were England to vote on the referendum, we could not put the status quo as an option in favour of the English. I could not be a party to that.
If, after the Scots and the Welsh have voted for devolution, the English were to find it absolutely unbearable to accept that they are not the only pebbles on the beach; that they do not exist in a national sovereign state but, like practically every other state in Europe, they exist in a system of power sharing, where sovereignty is distributed in several parts and several places, then it would be their right to say so. But it would amount to saying, "Stop the world, I want to get off". I hope that they do not do it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may say a few words about this matter, following the noble Earl. Debating historical and constitutional matters with the noble Earl makes a change. Normally, in our usual debates, he tells a few anecdotes from times long gone by and then discusses social security issues on the back of those anecdotes. Today, however, we hear him speak with almost no anecdotes, discussing something on which I know he is a great expert. I had hoped that he would address himself to the question I put to the Minister; namely, where does sovereignty lie? Does it lie with the people as the Scottish Constitutional Convention chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and now chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, or does it lie with Parliament?
124
I know that it is fairly easy to tempt the noble Earl to discuss these matters and perhaps I can tempt him at a later stage to give us an answer on that point. The Government seem to have entirely failed to do so. Certainly, when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite, I always tried—no matter how inadequate it might have been—to answer questions put by those on the opposite side. If Ministers speak with their noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, they will find that, although she sometimes did not like my answers, she certainly knew that she had received answers.
My noble friend Lord Onslow made an important point; namely, there will be knock-on effects of Scottish and Welsh assemblies or parliaments (if we come to it) on the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the way in which we run the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has confirmed that. Questions will arise about what Scottish Members do down the corridor at Westminster if they no longer have a say over similar matters affecting their own constituencies—the so-called West Lothian question. There may well be other financial matters which will have to be addressed. There will be important matters raised and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will already appreciate that there will be important matters about the position of the Scottish Ministers—in other words, Scottish parliament Ministers—on fisheries and agriculture when it comes to the United Kingdom being represented at Brussels by United Kingdom Ministers for fisheries and agriculture.
At Second Reading I attempted to say, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is gracious enough to accept, that we should leave these matters until we come to a Bill, if we do come to a Bill. Then we must address in some detail how the new arrangements fit in. This is a referendum and the matter ought to be decided by the Scots and the Welsh; or perhaps, more particularly, by those people of whatever ethnicity who are living in Scotland or Wales at this particular time.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, seems to believe that I concede his case. I am not doing so. I am saying that that is what he says should happen—that is the answer that he gave. I shall return to amendments—indeed, I was about to come to them—about Scots who live in England at this moment and whether or not they should vote; or about Scottish soldiers who are based in England and whether or not they should vote. There is no doubt that my noble friend's amendments would get round those two problems. But I believe that he was wrong in his assertion that the English should be given a vote in this referendum. This is a matter for the Scots and the Welsh primarily, although, if they both agree to have such an assembly, then we and the other place down the corridor will have to address very seriously the question of how the assemblies/parliaments link in with what I, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, trust will be the continuing United Kingdom.
Having had a debate on this issue, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is one of the finest debaters in this Chamber. With very good humour, he attempts to tempt people into rash

125
statements by way of answers to the direct questions that he asks. He has tempted me. I shall now give a wrong answer to his question. The tempting question was: How does one match the Scottish Constitutional Convention's idea of sovereignty which vests in the Scottish people with the idea of our Parliament being sovereign?
I am sure, in my misguided view, that there is a simple answer. If any Scottish assembly or parliament which may be created as a result of our deliberations and the passing of this Bill decided to hold a referendum, I have no doubt that what is in the Scottish convention would apply. This is a Bill which one assumes will be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament and it is that Parliament and that law which has jurisdiction. The result is that, as our law constitutionally says, Parliament is sovereign and therefore the result of the referendum will be advisory. That is clear to me. But I repeat: if anything is clear to me, as my clients know, it must be wrong.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I repudiate the suggestion that the constitutional debate in Wales and Scotland— Scotland in particular—which is serious and well informed, can be categorised as a whinge fest. Significant areas of opinion in both Scotland and Wales want an alteration of the arrangements which have substantially been in effect and have led to the over-centralisation, the over-concentration of state power in Westminster. That is not a whinge fest; it is an intelligent approach to modern constitutional arrangements.
The key criterion for deciding who should vote on our proposals for establishing a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly ought to be residency in the countries concerned. I was grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to the position for which we contend. It should be the residents of those countries who vote in the referendum; they are the most directly affected by devolution.
Perhaps I may offer an example. I believe myself to be Welsh. I was brought up in a Welsh-speaking household. I no longer live in Wales, as a matter of choice. As a matter of free choice, I am registered to vote in local elections in Gloucestershire. I see a number of my noble friends on the other side who come from west Wales and also mid-Wales—my noble friend Lord Hooson—and also north Wales, which I understand has some intimate connection with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They may well be entitled to vote in local elections. If so, they ought to be entitled to vote in a referendum.
We are proposing that those entitled to vote in local elections in Scotland and Wales should be entitled to vote in the referendums. That includes Peers, which I am sure must be a determining factor, and EU citizens resident in Scotland or Wales. It would exclude overseas electors, who are entitled to vote only in parliamentary elections.
That was a principle recognised by Parliament in respect of the 1979 referendums in Scotland and Wales. Much more recently, when the present Opposition was
126
then in government, under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 exactly the same principle was adopted; that is, the franchise was extended to the people of Northern Ireland and not the whole of the United Kingdom. We believed then that that was the right decision and propose the same decision on the present occasion.
It is not correct to say that people in other parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have no voice. That is quite wrong. The final decisions on the principle and the detail of setting up a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly reside with this Parliament. It is this Parliament which will make those ultimate decisions, as was plainly established in the interesting debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
We have put forward a balance between consulting directly with those in Scotland and Wales and, at the same time, ensuring that the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole are properly taken into account in both Houses of this Parliament. I therefore invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Of course I shall withdraw the amendment. I just wanted to bring attention, as harshly as I could, to a fact which I believe passionately to be true; that is, that just over 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom have the right to vote to change the constitution of the other 87 per cent. If they vote for it and it is carried out, Cassandra will be proved right. It will be a tragedy for the United Kingdom.
If I can understand that, other people ought to be able to. The consent of our Parliament has been based on the consent of everyone in the United Kingdom working to the same rules. It is extremely depressing to think that the things that I foresee will come about. With that gloomy thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("establishment") and insert ("re-establishment").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 4, 55 and several others included in the grouping is to set the Scottish dimension of the referendums Bill and the schedule in its correct context. The amendments are straightforward and the substantive change is no more than to add the two letters "re" hyphenated on to the front of the words "establish" and "establishment". The Bill would therefore refer to the "re-establishment" of a Scottish parliament.
Of the fact that a Scottish parliament existed before May 1707 there can be no doubt. The amendment was trailered by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, as being trivial. It is not trivial that there was a Parliament in Scotland before May 1707. The minutes of that Parliament are available in the Library and give us a valuable insight into its workings. For example, those concerned today with the exclusion of a class of Members of this Chamber and seeking for a

127
precedent need only look at the Scottish Act abolishing the Prelacie dated 22nd July 1689, and thus excluding bishops from the Parliament. That example is not offered as a presbyterian's revenge and I must declare the interest of being an elder of the Kirk.
While I accept that the teaching of Scottish history may have been sidelined until recently—disgracefully, if I may say so—I am unable to accept that the pre-Union Scottish Parliament has never been heard of. It may not necessarily have been the most wonderful example of a Parliament, but it is very much part of Scotland's heritage and an historic symbol of Scotland's continuing sovereignty, as much so as the excellently displayed Honours of Scotland. And, further to that, Edinburgh still enjoys Parliament Square and Parliament House alongside the Royal Mile.
The heroic defence of Scotland's independence and criticism of the incorporated Union by Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun took place in that Scottish Parliament. Fletcher's pamphlet about the effect of Article 22 of the treaty sums up why we are here today involved in legislation to improve the Union. He wrote,
"The Scots deserve no pity, if they voluntarily surrender their united and separate interests to the Mercy of an united parliament, where the English have so vast a majority … it is much easier to corrupt 45 Scots in London, than it is to corrupt 300 at Edinburgh; and besides, there will be no occasion of corrupting them, when the Case shall occur of a difference betwixt the South-Britons and the North-Britons; for the Northern will be out-voted, without being corrupted … This will be the issue of that darling Plea, of being one and not two; it will be turned upon the Scots with a Vengeance; and their 45 Scots Members may dance around to all Eternity, in a trap of their own making".
The complaint about sleaze may not be as serious as it sounds. In an unpaid parliament, "management" was then the accepted way of securing consent. The Earl of Mar's remark that,
"Contrair to our expectations, the treaty has cairied",
sums up the success he had, as Principal Secretary, in managing the vote during the ratification of the treaty. It is worth noting the disillusion with which the incorporating Union was received, even by the Principal Secretary, who was promoting the treaty. The Earl of Mar wrote to William Carstares, on 9th March 1706, thus:
"You see that what we are to treat of, is not in our choice, and that we see the inconvenience of treating an incorporating union, only".
Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that I have withdrawn amendments which called for the alteration of "a" to "the" before the words "Scottish Parliament". I did this because I realised that such amendments might cause confusion. They might imply that it is the pre-Union Parliament that is being re-established. Of course, the Parliament being proposed for re-establishment will have very different characteristics from its predecessor.
With regard to my claim at Second Reading that the Parliament of Scotland stands adjourned, it may be that I have misled the House and myself. If that is the case, then I apologise profusely. The minutes of the Parliament of Scotland contain no entries beyond the adjournment on 25th March. The House was adjourned until 22nd April, but it never sat on that date. The form
128
of adjournment was the same as the last day of previous Parliaments. An adviser friend put this to an historian acquaintance, curiously in America. The answer came back that the Parliament of Scotland was dissolved by proclamation on 28th April 1707. Ironically, the source quoted was the Mar and Kellie Papers in the National Library of Scotland.
A visit to there produced two documents that can help us. On 21st April Lord Mar records:
"This day the council met and adjourned the Parliament to the 29 Apryle".
On 28th April, curiously written down as 1706 when he meant 1707—this has no doubt confused historians—Lord Mar recorded this:
"Yesterday the Parliament was dissolved, and this day, the council and Exchequer sale and her Majesty's letters being read, there were two proclamations published accordingly".
I do not understand why this proclamation was not recorded in the minutes. The minutes were printed and bound in 1824. The Union was in full swing by then, and I cannot see why this proclamation should have been suppressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the historical purpose behind my friendly amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, kindly wrote to me to explain the logicality of his amendments. As he indicated, the Parliament of Scotland was apparently adjourned in 1707. That seems to be the situation still. It stands adjourned. He has suggested that, with the new parliament that is proposed, there could be two parliaments operating in Scotland at the same time. I hope that the Minister, reinforced by legal interpretations, will be able to tell us what the situation is.
Whether "re-establishing"—the wording in these amendments—is the correct solution I do not know. It might increase the confusion. Although the Scottish Parliament of 1707 was fairly democratic compared with other parliaments at that time, to revive it now would not be a move towards further or greater democratic governance. I would remind the Committee that it consisted of the three estates; the peers, the landowners and the burgesses, who were broadly town dwellers. Those who attended were usually chosen or regarded as representatives and most of the work was done by a central committee. At least one distinguished ancestor of the noble Earl participated and I am glad to see in his place my noble friend Lord Belhaven, whose ancestor was also a leading member of the 1707 Parliament and, incidentally, was one of the leaders opposed to the union.
I fully understand from an historical point of view the reasons at that time for some supporting the Union and others opposing it. But there are some nationalists in Scotland—I refer to the SNP and others: this is not a matter concerning the Liberal Democrats—who call for that Parliament of 1707 to be resumed on the basis that it is still there and should be brought back. I hope that the Minister can, with legal interpretation, settle this matter of the adjournment once and for all.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am totally foxed by this amendment. Either the Scottish Parliament exists or it does not exist. If it does not exist, what is the object of the amendment? If it does exist, the only way constitutionally that the parliament can be dissolved is by a Royal Proclamation. The noble Earl said—I accept with much interest everything he said—that it was dissolved. Well, then, it does not exist. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that it stands adjourned. That is quite different from being dissolved. If the noble Earl says that it was dissolved, it was dissolved. In any event, if it was not dissolved and still exists, it is a matter for the Queen and a Royal Proclamation. This amendment appears to me—I say this with the utmost respect—to be wholly misconceived.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Earl has told us with, I think, fairly good historical authority, that the Parliament was dissolved. For that reason alone I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in what he has just said. But there is another reason why I would be very sorry to see the word "re-establishment" occur in the Bill. That is because, as I understand it, not having seen the White Paper in a dream or anything like that, the parliament that is on offer from the present Government is quite different from the old Scots Parliament. The old Scots Parliament made all the laws concerning Scotland. There was no area which was not its province. What is on offer now is a parliament which would not have any control over the making of laws concerning foreign affairs, defence, fiscal matters or, we are told, social security and possibly other areas. It would therefore be very misleading to put the word "re-established" into the Bill. I might just add that my ancestor was a prominent member of that old Parliament and he, too, was against the union.
Lord Rees-Mogg: As the only Member of the Committee who seems not to be descended from one of the Peers of the Scottish Parliament, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on an amendment of the utmost importance, even if that requires that I should clash with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, who has been so helpful to us in the debate. It seems to me that that goes to the heart of the matter. The old Scottish Parliament was a Parliament. It was an independent Parliament of an independent nation. It had no natural limitation on its powers except in so far as there were powers reserved to the Crown or to the Scottish legal system.
The proposed parliament—which, like the proposal for Wales, might be called an assembly—will not be a sovereign parliament as I understand it—that is to say, it will be a subordinate body of the United Kingdom Parliament with certain powers devolved to it.
If we were to accept this amendment, it seems to me that we would be implying that the parliament that was contemplated had either the power or potentially could acquire power, similar to that of the original Scottish Parliament. We would be going back to a full,
130
independent parliament which, when matters came to a head, would have the right to contradict the Parliament at Westminster.
But my understanding is that that is not to be the situation of the proposed Scottish parliament; that it is to be given certain functions, with perhaps certain taxing powers as well, but all the other functions of the parliament are to be retained in Westminster. Ultimately, I suppose, what Westminster has given to the Scottish parliament by statute could in theory be redeemed by a subsequent Westminster Parliament. It seems to me that this amendment has to be rejected because we would be doing something quite different from what is proposed by the Government. Nevertheless, it points to the very question which we have been discussing in terms of sovereignty, which is the central question; namely, what sort of parliament is proposed?
Lord Howie of Troon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, my forebears played no part in the Treaty of Union. They had no vote and nor did anyone think of giving them one. I suppose some of us have got one now.
I do not know whether the Parliament was adjourned or dissolved, but for the sake of this debate I am prepared to assume that it was adjourned, although there is some contradictory evidence in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who introduced the debate.
Two things strike me and the first is this: if the Parliament is adjourned and this new parliament is established, it can remain adjourned. The problem then resolves itself and disappears. It will remain adjourned for all eternity. However, if the Parliament is adjourned and then re-established, there is the possibility of having two parliaments in Scotland. I can see that as a confusing situation, but it resolves one difficulty which I have in my understanding of the Government's proposals for the new Scottish parliament. Although the White Paper is not before us as yet, as I understand it the new parliament is to be uni-cameral. I do not really care for that.
If we have two parliaments, we shall resolve that difficulty and the re-established Scottish Parliament would then become the equivalent of the House of Lords. It would take up the revising duties which we carry out for the United Kingdom and which it appears we shall be denied doing for Scotland in due course. I incline towards the view of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said, put his finger on a very significant and important constitutional point.
Lord Hughes: I am sorry that I cannot follow my noble friend in the way he regards the possibility of re-establishing the Parliament. Instead I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, wrote to me, as he did to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointing out that his amendment was not intended to be in any way against the establishment of a Scottish parliament, which the

131
Bill aims to set up. My interpretation is that, if the Scottish Parliament is re-established, the noble Earl is giving the SNP its case in one amendment because the Parliament which existed then, as has been pointed out, had sole power. It was an independent Parliament and the English had nothing to do with it. So if it is re-established, the SNP will be inviting the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, to become the president.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: I am a bit puzzled by this amendment. Who is going to sit in this adjourned Parliament? As far as I can see, it will be a parliament of ghosts. Who is going to start it off? Is there anyone still alive who was alive in 1707? I do not believe that there is.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: They might be dead, but their heirs are alive. The noble Lord is one of them.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It would be an impertinence to follow the noble Earl into Scottish history. It would be all the more impertinent to do so in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In addition, I do not feel confident to discuss the constitutional position. I deprecate this amendment because it will only lead to confusion.
I shall be moving an amendment shortly, so perhaps I may say where I stand in general on this Bill. I am generally in favour of devolution because it assists in moving decision-making nearer to the people who are affected. I well understand the opposition view based on the slippery slope and the thin end of a wedge argument. A very perceptive political thinker, Hugh Cecil, who I believe was a great uncle of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, once said that the British constitution is full of the thin ends of wedges, which the good sense of the community refrained from driving home. But the trouble here is that we cannot rely on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the Scottish National Party. It wants to drive home that wedge and it is a very real danger. For my part, I believe that the danger of not accepting the Bill, which I hope can be improved, is greater than the danger which I have just mentioned. My noble friend Lady Saltoun mentioned the fact that the Scottish Parliament was sovereign, subject to the doctrine of sovereignty lying in the hands of the people. At any rate, it had all-embracing jurisdiction. It had jurisdiction over defence and foreign affairs. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has left the Chamber so he need not be inflamed. As I read Anglo-Scottish history, foreign policy had a distinctly Anglophobe colour. If we use the word "re-establish", it will be perceived that we are recommending to the voters the establishment of a parliament with similar powers to that which existed before the Act of Union. But that is not the intention at all. As I understand it, the intention is that there is a comparatively limited jurisdiction to be conferred on the Scottish parliament. In general, it is to be such functions as at present are devolved on the Secretary of State for Scotland and specifically Scottish matters like Scottish law and,
132
I suppose, perhaps, the Scottish Church. Therefore, if we accept the amendment we are inviting the driving home of a wedge, and a very dangerous wedge.
Another matter adverted to was that before 1707, the Scottish Parliament was bicameral. It had a House of Peers. We do not know because we have not been told— and it is one of the many things that we have not been told—
6 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. The Scottish Parliament was unicameral and there were the three estates who sat in it. Those were the Peers, the burgesses and the clergy— the Church. But it was unicameral.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that my noble friend will acquit me of discourtesy but I am afraid that I do not hear interventions. In fact, I have considered whether I am justified at all in addressing Members of the Committee in debate when I do not do so.
Perhaps I may try to continue the point. It may be understood and it may be argued that we are reviving a bicameral Scottish parliament. I doubt very much whether that is the intention of the Government, although they have asserted repeatedly the value to the constitution of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, mentioned that on Second Reading in most generous terms.
Therefore, it seems to me that these amendments can lead only to misunderstanding and potentially dangerous misunderstanding. I hope that the noble Earl will not press them.
Lord Mishcon: I have a short declaration to make which is that no ancestor of mine was a member of the Parliament that existed in Scotland prior to 1707. But I have every reason to believe that that Parliament had a very great respect for the Ten Commandments.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am tempted to temper the description of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish when he said that the amendment was trivial because it has raised issues which I hope the Minister will address. There is some confusion as to the exact status of this parliament. A number of different solutions have been put forward by the noble Earl and by other Members of the Committee. It would help if the Minister could lay some of those ghosts to rest.
However, my noble friend's allegation that the amendment is trivial does bear thinking about in that it is the only amendment which the Liberal Democrats have tabled for discussion in Committee.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This is an individual amendment tabled by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope that the Liberal Democrat Party has some sort of collective unity which enables it to take a position on the Bill. What has surprised some Members of the Committee is that the Liberal Democrat Party, which played a crucial role in

133
the constitution convention and which argued very strongly in another place in relation to the issues on which this Bill departs from the conclusions of that convention and took its amendment to the vote, has chosen not to pursue any of those substantial points of difference which have been identified during the passage of the Bill here.
In his substantial Second Reading speech, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, did flag up the point which the honourable Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross pursued in the other place.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The view is taken on these Benches that the sooner this Act is passed the better. Let the people of Scotland and Wales decide without all this shilly-shallying which we are hearing from the Conservative Benches.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will agree that we are beholden to, and, indeed, have been requested by, people outside this Chamber to make sure that the Bill receives full parliamentary scrutiny for the sake of both those who support devolution for Scotland and Wales and those who oppose it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Liberal Democrats want to see what sort of proposals come forward from the Government for the creation of a parliament for Scotland and an assembly for Wales. When those proposals come forward, as we hope they will, then we shall have a full debate on the particular type of devolution which we require.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having taken part in this debate, and shortly, I hope, I object to being accused of shilly-shallying. I regard that as an offensive, gratuitous and singularly unpleasant remark. Will the noble Lord understand—he has not been here all this time—that we have a duty to do and we are doing our best to do it?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: There is nothing personal in the expression that I used and if I have caused the noble Lord offence, then of course I withdraw it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Thank you, accepted.
The Earl of Lindsay: Perhaps I may make one point about the amendment which was covered largely by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, helpfully circulated a letter to Members of this House who took part in the Second Reading debate to explain, first, that his amendment does not seek to bring any harm to the Bill, but secondly, that there is a danger that we may have two parliaments in Scotland.
In some respects, whatever happens to this amendment, should devolution be voted for and delivered, there will be an element of two parliaments operating in Scotland. Every Scot, wherever he or she lives, will have two parliamentary MPs representing him
134
or her. One will sit in Scotland dealing with those affairs which are dealt with in Scotland. Another representative will sit in Westminster dealing with those affairs which are dealt with in Westminster. There will be an inevitable confusion, on which the White Paper may or may not throw light, as to those affairs which are partly dealt with in Scotland and partly dealt with in Westminster.
The more important point about the danger of having two parliaments in Scotland is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. He quite correctly was reminded of the fact that the proposals being put forward by the Government are for unicameral government in Scotland. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, the Scots are to have a parliament devolved to them which is capable of creating primary legislation but which will not have any ability to revise that primary legislation. There will be no counterbalance so that a second look can be taken at any suspected excesses achieved by that single chamber.
Perhaps the Minister will pass on a request to those completing the White Paper. During the debates on the Queen's Speech my noble friend Lady Blatch referred to bicamerality and unicamerality. In a letter succeeding that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said that the Government intended that the Scottish parliament would be a modern and effective parliament with built-in procedures and opportunities for the scrutiny and revision of legislation and its business. Given that much of the parliamentary legislation that affects all Scots will now be changed from a bicameral to a unicameral democratic system it would be useful if the noble Lord could explain, either today or in the White Paper, exactly what built-in procedures the Edinburgh parliament will have in order to replace the role that is now provided by the second Chamber in Westminster.
I return to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. As later stages of the Bill are pending it would be useful if the various questions and uncertainties that have been raised by this amendment were properly put to bed by the Minister.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I greatly enjoy the privileges of this House. One of them is the relaxed atmosphere in which debates are conducted. We do not have a Speaker in this House. That imposes on its Members a certain degree of self-discipline. The subject before the Committee today is the question whether or not a referendum should be held. We have had long debate in the course of these proceedings on what kind of parliament there should be, whether it should be a unicameral parliament, and so on. That issue will arise from our deliberations and debates on the White Paper and on the amendment. I appeal to noble Lords to consider in their interventions whether they are discussing the issue of a referendum. That is the issue before us. While I enjoy the historical references to our ancient parliament, I believe that we should try as Members of this House to discipline ourselves into discussing the matter before the House.
Lord Sewel: Phew! I have long since discarded the speaking note that was prepared for this particular

135
amendment. There were times during the debate when I considered that if I had not been here I would not have believed it. It is one of those wonderful occasions when there have been truly cameo performances in your Lordships' House by all concerned. I believe that that is very much valued.
I am in a state of utter and total confusion. Even towards the end of the debate I believed that we were talking about whether or not to insert "re" before "establish". Instead, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, went on at great length about unicameral parliaments. The relevance of unicameral parliaments to the insertion of "re" before "establish" totally escapes me, but I am sure that it is a valid point.
My other source of confusion is the following. Before the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, rose to speak I was absolutely convinced that the previous parliament stood adjourned and that was why it was sought to re-establish it. The noble Earl immediately said that it had been dissolved. How one re-establishes a body that has been dissolved I do not know. I do not know whether I am on sure and uncontested historical ground by pointing out that there are no members of that parliament. Those who were members are dead. I may be chancing my arm in the context of some of the contributions to the debate. I look forward to any interventions.
The serious point—virtually all of the contributions come down to this—is that whether we like it or not the kind of parliament proposed in the White Paper—this Bill sets up the referendum—will be fundamentally different in both powers and composition from the parliament that existed prior to 1707, whether that parliament stands dissolved or adjourned. Because of that fundamental difference there is no sensible way in which the new parliament can re-establish the old. That is not a matter of practical reality.
I hope that the noble Earl will not take it amiss if I point out that the more I conducted my personal researches into the parliament of 1707 before coming to the Dispatch Box the more I was persuaded that the workings of the former Scottish Parliament were not a model that we should try to emulate. Certainly, they are not a model of rectitude for the way in which we hope to see Scottish parliamentary business carried out in future.
I have a solution to the problem, which I admit is crude and borne of sheer pragmatism. I propose that we bury the 1707 parliament, adjourned or dissolved, in the shroud of historical obscurity, let it rest and get on with the establishment of a new parliament.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: On 9th January 1707, at the end of a bitter debate about the ratification of Article 22, which does concern us, the Duke of Atholl—no relation—summed up the constitutional position thus:
" … it is plain and evident, that, from this, a sovereign Independent Monarchie shall dissolve its constitution, and be at the disposal of England, whose Constitution is not, in the least, to be altered by this Treaty".
136
This is what we are talking about. It is hoped now slightly to reverse that position. The aim of the referendum is the re-establishment of a parliament in Scotland with, admittedly, limited sovereignty.
One must bear in mind that in the past two general elections 22 per cent. of the population voted with the Scottish Nationalist Party. That suggests to me that the Scottish people are very unhappy with the status quo—so unhappy that, rather than modify it, they would rather leave the United Kingdom. However, I believe that the United Kingdom is capable of modification.
I should like to say one word about unicamerality. I believe that if one pursued the Constitutional Convention's blueprint of pre-legislative committees which would consider legislation at the White Paper stage, not merely when it arrived in the form of a Bill, the bicameral function of this House in scrutinising legislation that had barely been looked at by the other end of the building could be incorporated into a unicameral function.
As to the question of dissolution, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would produce details of the proclamation. So far the only details available to us on whether or not the parliament was dissolved are those provided by the jottings of the Earl of Mar.
Lord Sewel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the authority of the jottings of the noble Earl's predecessor.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for his kind acceptance of that point. I shall of course withdraw the amendment. The Parliament of 1707 by now has gone, like yesterday. I did not wish to reproduce a parliament made up of lairds, burgesses, on occasion, bishops, and Peers, although I suppose that the hereditary peerage—I think that my noble kinswoman Lady Saltoun of Abernethy was intending to contribute on this aspect— would produce some members of a re-created parliament of 1707. I do not want that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 4A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("and tax-varying powers").
The noble and learned Lord said: It falls to me to move the first of a series of amendments to be spoken to in conjunction with it referring to the taxing capacity of a proposed Scottish parliament, and, generally, to finance. I tabled the amendment as an alternative to one already proposed and also to the wording in the Bill. With reference to the Deputy Chairman's observation, I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide on the amendment or the subsequent amendments in my name.
My objection to the Government's phraseology is that it is much too vague. On the previous amendment I drew attention to the fact that there is a joker in the pack—a body of persons who are willing to drive home the Bill, while willing to see the slide down the scale, and to exploit any vagueness.
I have a feeling—I hope that it is not due merely to the unpleasing cynicism that comes with years, both calendar and parliamentary—that we are having the second question about varying taxation because Mr. Blair got into trouble when he made his foray into Scotland. The term "varying taxation" can mean anything or nothing. Taxation includes VAT and Customs and Excise as well as income tax. Income tax itself contains a great many matters. The prime duty of Parliament is to put perfectly clear and understandable propositions to those who are invited to vote.
Amendment No. 4A leaves out the phrase, "and tax-varying powers", and Amendment No. 8A adds the words:
"with limited power to raise or lower basic rates of income tax".
I think that that is what is proposed for the Scottish parliament. I am reinforced in that view as I think that it was in the mind of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, although, again, I speak in deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Steel. I tabled the amendment in preference to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lady Saltoun, which merely inserts the word "income" before the word "tax". That is an improvement but it does not go far enough. Income tax covers, for example, allowances and tax avoidance. I believe that it would be disastrous to have a different Customs regime north of the Border. It can only cause confusion if we have marginal matters of income tax, tax avoidance, tax allowances, and so on, differently dealt with.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Perth relates to the power to raise or lower taxes. It is many years since I first met my noble friend Lord Perth. He was brought in with another eminent Scot to give counsel to the Treasury on a matter where there was a distinct difference of departmental opinion. Ever since then I have held him in the highest respect, but I do not think it is going far enough merely to say "raise or lower taxes" because that would certainly include VAT, and probably also Customs and Excise. I tabled my amendment in the hope of hearing the Committee's opinion on these various matters. We do not know very much about what is in the Government's mind in general with regard to the handling of tax. That is why we have all along been in difficulties. Until we know what is in the Government's mind, we do not know what question to be put to the electorate. We have at best to wait for the White Paper.
I have to ask a question arising out of an answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, to searching questions about the finance and tax provisions under Scottish devolution. He said:
"My Lords, if the Scottish parliament were to vary the tax rate downwards, Westminster would lose a possible £450 million of revenue but could adjust that from Scotland's block grant".—[Official Report, 18/6/97; col. 1236.]
138
In other words, Scotland would be no better off for lowering taxation. I should like to know in particular how it would work with the raising of taxation. With the great Scottish tradition of education, and with the strong influence of the Liberal Democrats, they might well want to raise taxation specifically to pay for improved education.
Let us suppose that income tax were raised 3p. What effect would that have on the block grant? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on that and deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. He did not answer the question but he read his brief, which was very illuminating. It referred back to the effect of raising taxation by 3p in the pound. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is in the Government's mind. If he does, we shall be in a much better position to know what system ought to be adopted.
The subsequent amendments standing in my name are consequential on the two to which I have spoken. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My amendments are grouped with that moved by the noble and learned Lord, but I am not sure whether it is in order for me to speak to them as part of the whole story or separately. In any event, I shall work on the assumption that I should speak to my amendments now.
It is always an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I agree that the words used in the schedule are too vague. It is of first importance that the questions, which appear in the schedule, are totally clear and unambiguous. The first part of the schedule is clear and states:
"I agree that there should be a Scottish parliament".
I have more difficulty with the second part. What is meant by:
"should have tax-varying powers"?
That is a confusing expression and I have tried in my amendments to make it clear what we are being asked to do in voting on that second part. That is why I propose the words "to raise or lower taxes", without in any way trying to suggest what should be part of the White Paper. Until we know what is in the White Paper we should not try to debate it. The form that I propose would make it easier for those for or against taxing to argue their case. The position would be much clearer to the voters, who must reach a decision. In Committee it is not appropriate to argue whether we have limited powers or whatever. That will come later after the publication of the White Paper. However, it is clear that we must get the question right.
I recently spoke with a number of my friends about the whole issue. They told me that I was right to support the first part of the schedule—whether or not we should have a Scottish parliament, although I must confess that I prefer the word "assembly"—but that the second part does not matter too much at this stage because we know that a Scottish parliament will not deal with taxation until later. There are so many other issues to be dealt with; namely, the exact relationship between the Scottish and English parliaments. As regards the issue

139
of taxing, it is argued that the tax will be limited. That is like the argument, "Oh, but the baby is only a little baby". That answer is not good enough. If the second question is not correctly phrased at the start we might raise the whole issue of the Union. I said much about that in my speech on Second Reading and my position is well known. I believe that we must make the wording of the question as clear as possible.
I hope that the Government will accept my amendments in the spirit in which I move them. I am not against the proposals; I am trying to help. I am trying to clarify what is meant by them. I find the words "tax-varying powers" unclear. Indeed, they are fudging the issue, which is the last thing we should do when putting questions to the voters. I hope that my amendment, which tries to clarify the situation, is acceptable to the Government. If I am allowed to do so, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With respect to the noble Earl, he cannot move the amendment now. The Committee can deal only with one at a time.
Lord Campbell of Croy: We have heard amendments that have been tabled and addressed by two experienced Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The matter they have raised is relevant to our examination of the Bill today.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, intervened to make a comment with which I entirely agree; that we ought to be concentrating on the terms of the Bill and not dealing with general questions of devolution. However, a tax-varying power is something quite new and the electorate in Scotland should not be asked to vote on whether there should be such a power until the Government have made clear how they propose the power should or could be used and its effect. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to assure us on that point.
Last week the press in Scotland were reporting—we do not know whether it is correct or not—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right honourable gentleman Mr. Gordon Brown was already finding that the suggestion for a 3p variation in the basic rate of income tax was not practicable and was trying to get this changed in the scheme that is being prepared for a Scottish parliament. This is not surprising, but it is unsettling for the public in Scotland. It is very difficult to formulate proposals in this field: much more difficult than the Government have so far suggested. Have the Government already decided on a change following the Chancellor's consideration of this matter since he came into office and will the proposals on tax by then adopted be clearly set out and explained in the White Paper?
Many points have been raised, again in Scotland, by eminent bankers, accountants and others working in the financial field in Scotland who are asking how is it going to affect people who are working north or south of the Border or with bank accounts north or south of the Border. They will wish to know how it is going to
140
affect dividend income and are the registrars of companies going to find out whether dividends are going to people north or south of the Border—will they be subtracting 3p or adding 3p? If so, it is going to be a huge business to do and also it might be unfair, because if it is decided that it is too difficult or complicated it would be the better-off people in Scotland who would probably benefit if dividends were not altered, whereas those people who have income from sources other than dividends would be worse off.
There are also other points which I will not go into here, but this demonstrates that the proposal for a tax varying power must be absolutely clear and decided and the public must be given a chance to understand everything, because they will look to these eminent financial leaders in Scotland for advice as to whether or not it is a good thing. At the moment they are indicating that they have not yet fathomed what it is that is being proposed. I support what the two noble Lords have suggested.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to say that I am very pleased with the phrase "tax varying powers". I think the difficulties enunciated by the distinguished speakers before me can be sorted out in the White Paper. "Tax varying" is a much better phrase than the previous one used, which was "tax raising" because people did not understand what "raising" meant. They were not sure if "raising taxes" did not mean putting them up.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Would the noble Lord not accept that, if the tax varying power is answered in the White Paper in the affirmative, it is liable, whatever it says in the White Paper, which has no statutory authority, to misinterpretation by those who do not want a limited parliament in Scotland?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think the White Paper and all the people who will be talking about the White Paper throughout Scotland will explain fully what is meant. If you are going to put more into this Bill, which is a simple Bill about a referendum, you are only going to confuse the issue.
Lord Renton: We are really concerned here with the exact meaning of certain important words. I hope that the government spokesman when replying to this interesting debate will tell us in the first place exactly what the Government think the expression "tax varying" means. I would have thought that prima facie it means the power to alter existing taxes only and no power to introduce any kind of new tax. Perhaps the government spokesman would let us know whether that is so.
Personally I hope there is no parliament with any tax varying powers and that people will vote that way, but if they are to be voting on this at all I think they would expect to he able to vote for a parliament to raise or lower existing taxes and to introduce new ones. The word "varying" may or may not mean that. I think we should be told what it means. But because of the uncertainty I really do not think it ought to remain in the Bill.

141
The question is: what should be put in its place? I am sorry to have to say, because I have an immense regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and immense gratitude to him for the support that he always gives to the improvement of the wording of statutes, that I am a bit worried about his alternative, which concerns limited power—it does not say in what way it is limited—to raise or lower basic rates of income tax. Of course it must be my ignorance but I do not know how a basic rate of taxation differs from any other rate of taxation. If there is a difference perhaps we should be told. But I do not find it satisfactory to have that phrase. I do not think that people would understand it well enough and it does raise a doubt as to the meaning of the expression "limited power".
Now I come to the alternative proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. They suggest that there should be power to raise or lower taxes. That sounds fine and I would prefer it to "tax varying", but we have to bear in mind that, unless I am wrong, it would not include a power to introduce new taxes unless—and it is arguable—the word "raise" is itself ambiguous. It may be that we use in ordinary conversation the expression "raising taxes". We do not necessarily mean increasing taxes; we mean the power to tax, and that includes the power to impose new taxes. So it may be that the amendment moved by the noble Earl meets the requirements in its ambiguity: in other words it includes the power to raise existing taxes and the power to introduce new ones.
Lord Rees: I rise with a certain diffidence to intervene in this debate because I am very conscious of the stern rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about shilly-shallying and also of the stern rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for whom I have warm regard, that we should exercise a certain self discipline. Perhaps I may say at the outset that if the debate has gone a little wide on this amendment and on earlier amendments it is entirely brought on by the approach of the Government to this very important piece of legislation. Had the Government produced either a White Paper or preferably produced and taken through both Houses a Bill to introduce devolution, then we would know exactly what it is we are to consider and what we are to commend to our fellow countrymen in England, Scotland and Wales. As it is, we are left almost totally in the dark. The debate has gone a little wide, therefore, because before we know exactly the powers, scope and mechanism of the referendum we must guess a little bit about what will be the proposals on which the people are to be asked to vote.
This is a particularly important question which is raised by the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, regarding taxing powers, because taxing powers are fundamental to the structure and organisation of the contribution of any legislative body. Some hints have been made at various points over the past few months by the Prime Minister, and indeed beforehand when he was Leader of the Opposition. We understand that even a Prime Minister with such a powerful majority as he evidently has in another place really must not presume too far. After all, he cannot
142
speak for both Chambers of the legislature and there may even be Members on his own Back-Benches— indeed, there is evidence that there may be some—who are a little unhappy about the measures that he has in mind.
However, we understood from the Prime Minister that a Scottish parliament—that is, if such a parliament were established or re-established, and I do not enter into that argument again—is to have powers to reduce or raise income tax by up to a figure of 3 per cent. or 3p in the pound. So far as concerns the reduction of taxes, there is no evidence as to how far such a parliament might reduce taxes. Even that raises a whole raft of questions. Let us assume that the Government of the day have in mind the raising or the reduction of direct taxation. However, that is not what the Bill says. In Clause 1(1) it refers to,
"tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament".
If they choose in the first clause of the legislation to use different words from those used by the Prime Minister, we must attach some significance to those words; in other words, what exactly are those "tax-varying powers"? To what tax do they apply? If it is direct taxation—for example, income tax—does it also apply to corporation tax? Let us at least simplify the debate for this evening and settle for income tax.
If taxes are to be raised, that will give rise to tremendously delicate questions as to how you define the kind of income on which the impost is to be increased in Scotland. How do you define Scottish income? If that particular sort of income happens to be taxed south of the Border, or even in Wales or Northern Ireland as well, will there be double taxation? These are very technical questions, if the income tax is reduced in relation to Scottish income tax, however defined.
Can the Minister say how the deficit is to be made up? Will the Scottish parliament be entitled to look to UK legislature to increase the funds passing to Scotland because the direct taxation on which the services have been calculated will be reduced by the Scottish parliament? As I said, these are very technical questions, but I believe that the country is entitled to ask them before it is asked to vote on the referendum. We need to know how such a question will be tackled.
I move on now to indirect taxation. If you have different rates of indirect taxation—for example, VAT, Customs duties and excise duties—north of the Border from what applies south of the Border, there will be considerable distortion in what up until now has been one unified market. Will the Minister defend this evening, or indeed at some later stage of the proceedings—if we get that far—such distortions in the UK market? Is he prepared to explain to us how Scottish consumers would be happy with such a situation? There are many such questions to which no answers have so far been given. We have been fobbed off and told that we will discover the answers some time in the course of July from the White Paper.
However, will those questions be answered in that White Paper? My pretext for raising the issues today is that we will need very clear answers to them. Moreover, we shall need time to consider them because they are

143
technical questions which, if they were tackled in any finance Bill, would need a great deal of professional input. I speak as someone who, for good or ill, in both opposition and government, has had to criticise and defend finance Bills. Therefore, I hope that those questions will not be brushed aside. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has performed a signal service in indicating to the Government Front Bench why this is not just a Bill about the mechanics of a referendum. Because of the way in which the Government have chosen to approach the legislation, we must have much more detail about the actual devolutionary measures which they have in mind.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend has made a very important speech. It is no good saying that such matters are irrelevant to a referendum; indeed, they are absolutely relevant and will have a great effect on how people vote. Certainly by the time the White Paper is published, in good time for the whole thing to be explained to people, we hope that we shall know the answers to those questions, even if we do not have them this evening.
For the direct purposes of the amendment, I do not know if the phrase,
"to raise or lower taxes",
as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is clearer than "tax-varying powers"; perhaps it is. However, in his amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggests that the wording should refer to the,
"power to raise or lower basic rates of income tax".
On Second Reading, I believe I understood the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to confirm in his summing up that the 3p, plus or minus, income tax suggested by the constitutional convention was the chosen method that would be included in the White Paper. I believe I understood him to confirm that fact, although I cannot actually spot it in my copy of Hansard at present. Perhaps the Minister will confirm in his reply that that is the case.
If that is indeed so, is it perhaps more accurate to use the wording suggested by the noble and learned Lord, in Amendment No. 61A? If the 3p is put on the basic rate, even I can see enormous complications in such an arrangement. However, if that is to be in the White Paper, it is possible that the wording suggested is clearer. I should be most interested to have clarification of what the Minister said on Second Reading and, if possible, an explanation of whether or not the alternative wording suggested by the noble and learned Lord, is better.
Lord Hooson: Clause 1(1) refers to,
"a referendum [which] shall be held in Scotland on the establishment and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament".
However, even if we leave out the words "tax-varying powers" and substitute the wording in Amendment No. 8A, the Bill does not set out what those limited powers of a Scottish parliament are to be. Everyone
144
knows that they will be limited powers, and that they will be spelt out in the White Paper and eventually embodied in a Bill.
I turn now to the second proposition; namely, the
"tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament".
There is no need to spell them out at this time any more than it is necessary to spell out the powers of a Scottish parliament because they will, I assume, be circumscribed by the White Paper.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not want to spend too much time on the amendment because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, may have gone further than the Government Front Bench would prefer. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a point by clarifying the situation. The term "tax-varying powers" is not as clear to me as the,
"power to raise or lower taxes".
Coming as I do from financial circles north of the Border, I should like the Front Bench opposite to realise that there is tremendous uncertainty there as to what will happen as a result of the publication of the White Paper and the subsequent legislation. Anything that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can say to allay the fears of those who are extremely worried about the tax-raising powers in this proposed new parliament would be a great service to everyone, including those who are most concerned with the running of industry and the financial circles north of the Border.
7 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The tremendous uncertainty in Scottish financial circles results from the old process whereby one starts a rumour and then repeats it as often as one possibly can: the rumour then becomes accepted fact. There is absolutely no truth in, for example, what the governor of the Bank of Scotland has been saying about the possibility of a sales tax. There is no truth in the possibility of VAT being raised or lowered. A simple proposition is being put to the people of Scotland; namely, do you want a Scottish parliament with revenue adjusting powers? The document of the constitutional convention makes that absolutely clear. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that my noble friend the Minister referred at Second Reading to the basic rate of income tax and a variation of 3 pence in the pound either way, either up or down. There was no mention of VAT, corporation tax or any of the other taxes that have been mentioned.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the possibility of a Scottish parliament introducing a new tax is also non-existent because a Scottish parliament's powers will be spelt out when we eventually get the devolution Bill. If we get on with this Bill and discover the result of the referendum we shall then know whether we are to have a devolution Bill. That Bill would spell out the Scottish parliament's powers. The powers in relation to taxation are limited to the basic rate of income tax and a variation of 3 pence in the pound up or down. If we tried to introduce any other new tax, we

145
would be acting ultra vires. We would be acting outside the powers defined in the Bill. I do not understand why there is all this confusion when the issue is quite simple.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. What he said in effect is that because eventually there will be another Bill setting out the powers of a Scottish parliament—if the people vote in favour of one—we do not have to worry very much about the exact phrasing of this Bill when it comes to letting the people vote on tax varying or tax raising powers, whatever they may be. But surely we have to get it right at this stage. People must not be asked to vote on something which could be more elaborate, and therefore considerably different, from what they are being asked to vote for now. We must get the question absolutely right as regards what they are asked to vote for under the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I rest my case on the reassurance given by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, at Second Reading. I am assuming that that reassurance, which is on the record, will be part of the White Paper when it is published. Members of the Committee opposite are stacking up problems that simply do not exist.
Lord Hughes: I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this matter, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said. The convention's document referred to income tax being raised or lowered by 3 pence. I believe that in the ordinary reading of the English language tax varying powers could not be interpreted as restricting themselves to a single tax. However, if the Minister is to tell us that the use of the tax varying powers will be confined to a variation of income tax, that should be made quite clear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for these amendments which draw our attention to the need to clarify the phrase "tax varying" to draw to people's attention the fact that that means the power to raise or lower taxes. I am doubly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because he has managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, to his feet to defend the second question of the referendum. Yet if my memory is right, the noble Lord resigned as joint chairman of the constitutional convention in protest at the decision by his party to have a referendum and to have that second question—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I correct the noble Lord because I would not want him to continue with his misunderstanding. I am not defending the second question; I am defending the principle of revenue raising or reducing powers for a Scottish parliament. That is a principle that was promised by the late Lord Home of the Hirsel. One of the reasons we failed to secure the 40 per cent. at the previous referendum was the promise made on the part of the Conservative Party at that time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing like rewriting history. It is amazing how the late
146
Lord Home of the Hirsel is suddenly transformed into a great hero by the party opposite when my recollection is that it did not think much of him when he was Prime Minister. But suddenly he is a great man. He becomes part of the folklore as to why a majority was not achieved in the previous referendum. If one looks at the polls during the run-up to that referendum, one will see that they were badly adrift for the then Labour Government for some weeks before Lord Home intervened.
It is interesting that we have been chastised again by the Liberal Democrat Benches as regards the triviality of these amendments and the fact that we should not bother about them. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was dismissive of any attempt to explore the second question. I know that I am not allowed to quote from certain proceedings—if I were, I would certainly do so—but I commend to him the debates in the House of Commons in Committee stage on 3rd and 4th June when some considerable time was taken up by an amendment of Mr. James Wallace on behalf of the noble Lord's party. The amendment dealt with the second question and proposed incorporating the second question into the first question to make just one question. Not only did Mr. Wallace speak, in moving the amendment and summing up, but also Mr. Gorrie, the new Member for Edinburgh West. Therefore I do not accept that we in this Chamber are wasting time when we discuss these matters. The Scottish leader of the Liberal Democrats in another place spent quite a lot of time debating whether there should be one question. The amendment proposed that the one question should refer to tax raising powers. Clearly, the Liberal Democrat Party in the Commons is still allowed some independence and freedom of thought on government legislation. I have already indicated I am surprised that that amendment is not being moved in this Chamber by the Liberal Democrats. I understand that they do not approve of having a referendum but they feel strongly that there should be only one question.
The question of varying taxation up or down is difficult because it is tied in with the difficult question of the consequences of that either for the Scottish government's expenditure or for Her Majesty's Treasury. I have little doubt that if this Scottish parliament comes about, another penny on the standard rate of tax will most assuredly be needed to cover the costs. Otherwise the costs, which I suspect will be £80 million or £100 million, will have to be met from somewhere in the Scottish block of funds. Therefore the Scottish education budget, the Scottish health budget or moneys to local authorities in Scotland will have to be cut to cover the deficit. Therefore the Scottish parliament will need to raise taxes to cover its running costs. Like Mr. Wallace in another place, I believe that it would be much more honest to ask about tax raising and not tax varying powers. However, if we cannot persuade the Government to go that far, they would do well to consider referring to tax raising or tax varying powers.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy drew our attention to an article last week in the Scotsman which stated that the Government were in some disarray about

147
this part of their White Paper. That may well explain why they are so reluctant to give me a date for the publication of the White Paper. Mr. Peter MacMahon, the Scottish political editor, says that the power to raise or lower the basic rate of income tax is to be dropped by the Government, and members of the ministerial committee on devolution to Scotland and Wales and English regions—it is known as DSWR and, if I am right, is chaired by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—have been working overtime on these issues. Even with the help of the two Scottish Members of Parliament in the Treasury team, the Chief Secretary Mr. Darling and the Economic Secretary Mrs. Liddell, they are having some difficulty with this scheme. I am not surprised. I have some difficulty finding out from the Government what it adds up to—or what it subtracts from.
Let us assume for a moment that the tax-varying power means tax reducing. The Scottish parliament will say to the Inland Revenue that instead of collecting 23p in the pound, or whatever the standard rate will be once the Chancellor has presented his Budget tomorrow, those in Scotland will pay only 20p in the pound. The Inland Revenue will be down something like £450 million in their tax take.
I raised the matter on the debate on the Queen's Speech. I was not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, promised to write to me. She did so; and her letter was interesting but not informative. If I recall the instructions, that is what the ministerial replies are supposed to be. However, she wrote words to the effect that I must wait upon the White Paper.
On the day after the Second Reading of the Bill, I put down a Parliamentary Question for Oral Answer. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, answered from the Dispatch Box. He did not give me much of an Answer when I posed the Question on the Order Paper. In my supplementary question, I spelt out the very question that I posed to the Committee: what happens when the Inland Revenue is £450 million light? What does that say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The noble Lord did not reply to the question even when posed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. But he answered the question when it was posed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who put it rather more bluntly. He asked whether it meant that the English taxpayer will be asked to pay more in taxes in order to make up the £450 million. At that point the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, decided that he had better answer my question. He said,
"If the Scottish parliament were to vary the tax rate downwards, Westminster would lose a possible £450 million of revenue but could deduct that from Scotland's block grant".—[Official Report, 18/6/97; col. 1236.]
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will wind up this debate. My question to him is this. Is that correct? If this parliament decides to reduce tax by 3p in the pound in Scotland, will the Scottish block lose £450 million? I absolutely believe the answer that the Treasury spokesman gives me because I know that the Treasury runs the Government. But I wish to hear it from the lips of a Scottish Office Minister so that the
148
people in Scotland can see that "tax-reducing" is not some kind of magical, painless promise that will come without any problem, but that it will mean that the Scottish budget will have to come down by £450 million.
That is not a huge amount of money in the Scottish budget. In my recollection, the Scottish budget is about £16.5 billion. But I must tell the Government—and every Member of the Committee who has been in government on either side will confirm this—that budgets are not made in terms of the billions. Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, of whom there are a number around this Chamber, look for the £10 million, the £50 million or sometimes even the £1 million, because they all add up. I am pleased to see that at least one former Chief Secretary agrees with me. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that taking £450 million from the Scottish budget will not be easy, nor will it be painless. It is not easy, nor is it painless to keep spending at its current rate in any department in any year. It will be far more difficult to reduce the amount by £450 million.
The reality is that the Government will not reduce by £450 million. So the idea that they may well reduce taxes is nonsense. Perhaps that is why Mr. Wallace had the integrity to put down in his amendment in another place "tax-raising" instead of "tax-varying". However, there is even more to the word "varying" than that.
On 11th June we had a Statement about the comprehensive public spending review. Again the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and myself had a discussion over the Dispatch Box about the review. I asked whether the comprehensive public spending review would include the Scottish Office. The noble Lord said that it would include every department. I then posed this question. What will happen if it is discovered in the fundamental review—the same ground rules having been applied north and south of the Border and to Wales and Northern Ireland—that the amount of money going to Scotland is excessive and therefore the budget based on the building blocks of spending comes to far less than the Goschen-Barnett formula allows for? Will the Goschen-Barnett formula be cut to accommodate the fundamental spending review? I received some comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. He said:
"There is no intention to make any alteration to the Barnett formula until the review has been completed".—[Official Report, 11/6/97; col. 930.]
As the review will be completed at about the same time as this parliament in Scotland may be set up, there are some significant financial questions to be answered about the tax-varying powers.
Am I wrong? Is it naughty of me to think for a moment that the Government would love a "No" vote on the second question; that they would quite like to be told, "You cannot have tax-raising powers"? And that is why we have a second question in the referendum. That is why the Government broke with the constitutional convention agreement. That is why they were prepared to break with the Liberal Democrats; and that is why they were prepared to oppose Mr. Wallace's amendment when he put it to the vote. He thought so seriously about the matter that he put the amendment to the vote. Is that why the Labour Party

149
have opposed it all along the line? Would it prefer a "No" vote on these tax-varying powers? We look forward to hearing the Minister on this issue.
I posed him a number of questions which I hope he will be able to answer. Is there any truth in the press reports last week, in particular the article in the Scotsman, that the Government are having so much trouble with the Treasury on this issue that they are having to drop it? Will the noble Lord confirm that if the Scottish parliament decides to vary taxes down, it will face a reduction in the block grant from the Treasury? Will he confirm further that, in order to fund this Scottish parliament, if it comes about, the Government will inevitably have to increase taxes on those of us who live in Scotland in order to fund it; or they will have to cut into Scottish expenditure on health, education, and so on?
Before the noble Lord answers that question and makes it appear easy to cut some money out of the Scottish budget, perhaps I may remind him of all the things that he and his right honourable and honourable friends said in the last election in Scotland about how parsimonious the Government were on public spending in Scotland. If there is any potential for the noble Lord to cut into the Scottish budget, either to fund the parliament or to reduce taxation, it seems to me that some of the statements made at the last election were just window dressing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked interesting questions about why we are not open about tax-varying, calling it tax-raising and tax-reducing. I have thrown in another question. Why do we not go along the lines that the Liberal Democrats had the courage to propose in another place; namely, to have one question which says openly that it will be tax-raising and that the idea that it will ever be tax-lowering is pie in the sky?
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may start by issuing a warning and then seeking the indulgence of the Committee. The matters covered in this group of amendments are somewhat similar to those that we shall address in the next group, so there is a danger that I shall repeat myself. I shall try to reduce the repetition to the minimum and it may be helpful if I try to deal straightaway with some of the questions raised.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, that the Bill's purpose is simple: to establish whether or not the people in Scotland and Wales will have a vote on the detailed proposals to be put before them by the Government through a White Paper. That is the only subject of the Bill. It is not about spelling out in great detail, or in any detail at all, the nature of the scheme. The scheme will be described and made clear in the White Paper which will be before the electorate in Scotland and Wales prior to the referendum.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord has put the question to be posed as being: "Do you agree with the proposals in the White Paper?" But the words in the statute that are put to the electorate are: "Do you want tax-varying powers?" The Minister must face the fact that that is what is in the Bill. Is he saying that there
150
should be unlimited tax-varying powers in a Scottish parliament, powers to vary not only income tax. but VAT, Customs, Excise and so on? Does he mean that?
Lord Sewel: No. Let me make it quite clear that what will be discussed are the particular and precise proposals in the White Paper, which will be detailed and limited. They will form the basis of the decision that the people will make in a referendum. The detailed proposals in the White Paper will then form the basis of the Bill establishing the Scottish parliament, which will indicate clearly and explicitly what those tax-raising powers are. To be more helpful, let me go on. Mention was made of varying the opportunity to create new taxes. The definition of varying with which I am working—and so is everyone else—is the power to vary existing taxes, not to bring in new taxes or establish new taxes.
I go further. In everything that we have ever said on taxation in relation to the powers of the Scottish parliament, we have made clear that it relates to income tax. Great mischief-making is going on in some areas by running scare stories that it is something to do with a sales tax or other forms of taxation. The Government have made clear, throughout the whole process, right from the constitutional convention days onwards, that any tax-varying powers would relate purely and solely to the raising and lowering of income tax.
I wish to deal with a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and, as expected, by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It concerned the business of what would happen if the Scottish parliament increased or decreased income tax by 3p in the pound. Let us go over that. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right and I do not see why there is any great mystery about it. It is not something that has been pulled out of a hat nor has it jumped out of a box. Clearly, if you reduce taxation, you have to pay for it. It is as simple as that. Reductions in expenditure must be made. We are not dealing with magic mirrors or something similar. It is a simple proposition.
Let us go over it. If the parliament decided to increase tax, the Inland Revenue would collect the extra tax, which would be paid over to the Scottish parliament by the UK Government. If the parliament decreased tax, then the Inland Revenue's overall tax take would be reduced. To reflect that, the overall level of resources passed to the Scottish parliament by way of block grant would be reduced accordingly. That is, if the Scottish parliament should decide to exercise that power. However, I must also stress that there is a world of difference between having a power and exercising that power through a policy. So let us not have another raft of scare stories that Scottish expenditure will be reduced because there will be a wish to reduce the level of taxation in Scotland.
The first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is whether we are dropping the whole income tax power too. The answer is, no, we are not. Wait for the White Paper to see the details. I have answered the second question. The third question was on the running of the parliament. The amount of resource available to the parliament will go there on the tried and tested basis of the block and formula approach and funding of the

151
parliament will have to come from the resources available to it. It is as simple as that. Again, we are not dealing with fancy figures or magic numbers. That is the reality. We have never tried to avoid it.
I turn to more general points. We believe that it is fundamentally important that people in Scotland should be given the opportunity to express their views specifically on the tax-varying proposals. To establish a parliament is an important step. To give the parliament tax-varying powers goes such a significant step further that the Government believe that it is quite right and proper that there should be a separate decision by the people of Scotland on that power.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the noble Lord say at what period that revelation came to the Government?
Lord Sewel: It is not so much that the revelation came to the Government. I am trying to bring the revelation to the rest of your Lordships' House. It has been argued that the amendments are intended to clarify the nature of the tax-varying powers of the Scottish parliament on which the Scottish electorate will be invited to vote in the referendum. Their purpose is to change the references to tax-varying powers to refer specifically to income tax and to change references to tax-varying powers to refer instead to powers to raise or lower taxes, if we put the bundle of amendments together.
Members of the Committee have argued that the limited nature of the tax-varying powers which we propose for a Scottish parliament should be reflected in the Bill and in particular there should be no suggestion that the Scottish parliament should be able to change the nature of the tax which it might collect. I hope that at long last I have been able to give an assurance on that— not for the first time—and one which will kill off that mischievous line of argument that we have heard. I understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but I do not believe that they will be helpful additions to the Bill, because they misunderstand the process whereby our proposals for tax-varying powers will be enacted.
The proposition put to the people in Scotland in the referendum is one of principle. The referendum is about issues of principle and not issues of detail. Issues of detail are properly dealt with in the White Paper that forms the basis for the campaign and for the decision at the time when the people come to vote in the referendum. If one starts moving away from principle to detail in the referendum legislation itself, one cannot end the process. It goes on and on. One starts spelling out, as was indicated, the precise nature—dotting i's and crossing t's—of the tax-varying powers. One starts spelling out the details of the general powers which will be transferred. That is not the way to tackle the problem.
The way to tackle the problem and the issue is to make sure that the referendum concentrates on the two principal issues: the establishment of a Scottish parliament and its ability to have tax-varying powers; and giving flesh to those principles and details to those
152
principles through the White Paper which will form the basis of debate and controversy, quite understandably, in Scotland.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him. He must appreciate that a White Paper is not part of the law and that, if there is a "yes" vote enabling the Government to introduce a Bill to lay down the details of a Scottish parliament and the taxing powers, Parliament may not approve all the details of the White Paper when translated into the Bill. Amendments may be made. It may become clear that some of the provisions of the White Paper are simply not workable. So the people will be in a very difficult position and so will the Government.
Lord Sewel: The basis of the referendum is to put to the electorate in Scotland the Government's proposals and to deal with the claim that has been made sometimes in this Chamber and certainly in the other place that there is not a degree of support for the Government's proposals in Scotland and in Wales. That is why the referendum is there: to nail what I would call the misrepresentation that there is not popular support in Scotland and Wales for these proposals. So, it is a means of establishing the degree of popular support in those two countries for the proposals.
Clearly, once we have the White Paper and once there is a referendum, we shall seek to legislate through the Bill to give life to the proposals in that White Paper. So, through all the process, once we get to the stage of this particular Bill having been passed—or, before this Bill is passed—we shall have a White Paper. That will contain the details, as I have said many times. I have only said it so many times because it is a point that I seem to be incapable of getting across to some Members of this Chamber. The White Paper will give the detail. The electorate will vote on the basis of that detail. That is it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord once again. If he wants, as earlier he said he did, to clarify the Government's intentions, can he tell us how he would wish us to react to Amendment No. 8A by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale? That amendment appears to say exactly what he is telling the Committee.
Lord Sewel: What I am advising the Committee— I expect my noble friends to follow that advice—is that we wish to see the Bill remain as it is proposed without any amendment whatsoever, because that is the most straightforward way of dealing with the issue in principle of deciding whether or not the people of Scotland wish to have a parliament with the power to vary taxation. That is the matter of principle. I believe that that is the way in which we ought to proceed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. As I indicated at the outset, the object was to canvass the opinion of this Chamber on this crucial matter in relation to

153
devolution and therefore in relation to the referendum. Naturally, I am all the more grateful to those who preferred my draft to the others. I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Perth preferred his amendment but it is far too late for me to start quarrelling with him.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seemed to me to be most effective and his points were not answered. My only cavil was that there escaped from him the typical reaction to the Treasury of a former Minister of a high spending department.
Before I come to the words of the Minister, I should like to make two comments. First, from the outset I have, I hope, made plain that I believe that a Scottish parliament should have revenue powers. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said about that both at Second Reading and today.
Secondly, power to vary income tax is, I believe, manageable. Power to vary other taxes would be quite impossible. The Layfield Report came down on practical grounds against local income tax. But I am assured by great pundits that modern technology has advanced beyond that point and that, indeed, by the summer there would be no difficulty in a local income tax, either local in England or local in Scotland.
The Minister replied plausibly. But, as a supporter of this Bill, I was deeply disappointed and indeed grieved that, on this crucial matter, he did not answer the point put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona: what is wrong with my amendment? In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, appeared to concede that that expresses what the Government wanted to do. But what he said concerned quite a different question: tax varying. He did not deal at all with the fact that that is an extremely vague phrase and that it could be—is likely to be—used by those who would go considerably further than the Government. The Minister said: "We are asking you to legislate now. We are asking you to legislate in ignorance of the White Paper, but in the White Paper all will be divulged". Members of the Committee may remember the prospectus for the South Sea Company, where investors—speculators—were invited to invest in a scheme subsequently to be resolved and divulged.
This Chamber has been asked to legislate in this Bill and it is simply not good enough to say that, although the Bill suggests an unlimited power of taxation, when we come to the present summer reading of the White Paper it will all be cut down. That is simply not good enough.
As I say, I am disappointed because on balance I support the Bill and I also believe that there is scope for a system of referendum in our parliamentary democracy. But not this referendum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the other speakers from the Liberal Democrat Benches that this referendum is entirely unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and other noble Lords— including the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn— said that the electorate made it perfectly plain at the last general election that they wanted a devolved parliament in Scotland and a devolved assembly in Wales. The former is probable; the latter is extremely questionable. Why then do we need this referendum? For two reasons
154
only. The first is that the answer to the first question, "Do you want a Scottish parliament", would strengthen the hands of the Government in bullying Parliament on these matters—particularly your Lordships. The second question was added late in the day because, as I suggested, Mr. Blair got into trouble in Scotland.
We really must have an answer in relation to the effect on Scottish finances of even the limited power suggested by my amendment. We were not told that. We were told that if income tax is reduced by 3p then the block grant will also be reduced by an equivalent amount—£450 million. That sounds as though there will be a double shortfall of revenue in Scotland. We were not told what would be the financial effect if a Scottish parliament raised taxation for increased expenditure, say, on education. That too was quite unanswered.
In the end this is at the heart of the matter and I for one, as a supporter of the Bill, am gravely disappointed at the response we received. However, I said at the outset that I would withdraw the amendment, if only to let my noble friend move his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be taken not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their commitment to a human rights-based foreign policy, what is their position with regard to the relationship between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with particular reference to the resolution of the conflict between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the conflict between Azerbaijan and the Armenians of Karabakh, which has cost tens of thousands of Armenian and Azeri lives, caused incalculable suffering and destruction and continues to cause misery to thousands of displaced people and instability in the entire region. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who will be speaking and especially delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Powis, has chosen to make his maiden speech tonight.
I shall set the scene by highlighting some historical facts and relating them to the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, which must be reconciled if a just and lasting peace is to be found. I must first declare an interest—not pecuniary, but personal. I have just returned from my 32nd visit to the region. My first was in May 1991 when I was asked to lead an international delegation from the Andrei

155
Sakharov Memorial Congress in Moscow to investigate reports of deportations by Azeri forces of Armenians from their ancient homelands. We went without prejudice. We returned deeply disturbed by the evidence of brutality inflicted on innocent Armenian civilians. We subsequently visited Azerbaijan to hear the Azeri viewpoint and returned even more disturbed by their attitudes and policies.
My position has since become one of advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh, who have been blockaded, besieged and bombarded with ruthless ferocity by Azerbaijan, intent on an explicit policy of ethnic cleansing. As the then Azeri President Elchibey said in June 1992,
"If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku".
Many Azeris have also been displaced. But the cause of their displacement has not been repeated massacre and attempted genocide. Azerbaijan encourages visits by politicians and the media to see their people suffering and to hear their version of events. But few people, including the politicians whose decisions will shape the future, visit Karabakh to see the suffering of the Armenians and to hear their point of view. Moreover, major aid organisations such as UNHCR have not been present in Karabakh so the Armenians of Karabakh have been denied both aid and advocacy.
Armenians have repeatedly suffered atrocities at the hands of Turks and Azeris, including the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey in the genocide of 1915; the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in the ancient Armenian city of Shushi in 1920; and massacres in Sumgait and Baku in 1988 and 1990. That history of genocide and massacre explains why the Armenians of Karabakh can never again accept Azeri sovereignty, and the conduct of the war initiated by Azerbaijan confirms that unacceptability beyond doubt.
During this war the 150,000 Armenians who live in Karabakh managed to withstand assaults by 7 million strong Azerbaijan, helped by Turkey with manpower and weapons and by several thousand mujahedeen mercenaries. In any war human rights will be violated by both sides. But there is a systematic asymmetry which proves that Azerbaijan has been the primary aggressor for at least seven reasons.
First, it was Azerbaijan, with Soviet 4th Army troops, which undertook "Operation Ring" in 1991: the brutal policy of systematic deportation of Armenians. Secondly, in October 1991 Azerbaijan announced its intention to annul Karabakh's autonomous status and to rename its capital city Stepanakert with a Turkish name. The Armenians saw that as the beginning of the end and resorted to the only constitutional means available to them. They held a referendum which gave an overwhelming mandate for independence and they elected their first parliament. Azerbaijan responded with full-scale military offensives.
Thirdly, in the ensuing war it was Azerbaijan which first used Grad multiple-missile rocket launchers against civilians. Between January and May 1992 I counted
156
400 Grad missiles every day bombarding civilians in Stepanakert. Other towns and villages also suffered sustained bombardment from towns in Azerbaijan proper, which eventually forced the Armenians of Karabakh to occupy those towns as a buffer zone.
Fourthly, only Azerbaijan used aerial bombardment of civilians, dropping 500 kg bombs from low-flying aircraft on to women and children. Fifthly, only Azerbaijan used ground-to-air missiles, detonated to explode over civilian targets. With no advance warning, people could not take cover. missiles exploded and razor-sharp shrapnel shredded anyone in the fall-out area. Sixthly, Azerbaijan and Turkey still maintain the infamous blockade of Armenia. Even after the earthquake in 1988 Azerbaijan would not allow the passage of humanitarian aid to the affected areas. Seventhly, in Armenia just a few weeks ago I met young Armenian soldiers abducted during the ceasefire and saw on their bodies the evidence of torture inflicted by their Azeri captors. That is why it is a travesty of the truth for so many media to label Armenians as the aggressors.
To come briefly to the present, despite the precarious ceasefire, which has held for over three years, people on both sides continue to suffer. Many Azeri refugees are still kept in harsh conditions in camps in Azerbaijan, and visitors are taken to see them. By contrast, Armenia, with comparable numbers of people made homeless by earthquake and war, and suffering from the continuing blockade, has found accommodation for all its displaced people. Visitors to Azerbaijan might ask what Azerbaijan has done with UNHCR money and why it has not been as successful as Armenia, with all its problems, in providing for its displaced people.
Current demands by Azerbaijan for the return of Shushi and Lachin to Azeri control indicate a lack of serious willingness by the Azeris to achieve a positive outcome to negotiations. The taking of the Lachin corridor and the town of Shushi by the Armenians of Karabakh were essential for their survival. That corridor is a vital lifeline for supplies, and Shushi, on a hill above Stepanakert, was a base for firing 400 Grad rockets a day on to the capital city. It is the equivalent of a Golan Heights.
Armenians cannot ignore the continuing build-up by Azerbaijan of its armed forces and weapons. Recent reports of Russian sales of weapons to Armenia fail to mention the massive purchases of arms by Azerbaijan by countries such as Ukraine, including Smerch and Uregan long-range missiles and fighter aircraft. If further conflict were to break out, and Azerbaijan attempts another genocide or ethnic cleansing, Armenia cannot stand passively by. If Armenia were to engage, this could trigger a regional war, which would cause incalculable suffering and destabilise the entire region, militarily, politically and economically.
It is thus of the utmost importance that the international community prevails on Azerbaijan to desist from further military offensives and to seek a political solution which takes into realistic account the deeply-rooted fears of Armenians, based on long experience of Azeri repression, which prevents them from ever again being able to accept Azeri sovereignty.
Such a political solution must give comparable weight to the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, recognised in the foundation of the OSCE. It was very unfortunate that the OSCE chairman's statement at the Lisbon Summit prejudged the outcome of the Minsk deliberations, giving unwarranted preference to the principle of territorial integrity at the expense of self-determination. That is totally inappropriate, as those borders have no moral or legal integrity. Karabakh had never been part of Azerbaijan until Stalin's autocratic decision in the 1920s. There is no legitimate justification for Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.
The UN recognises that no people should be required to live under the rule of a state which has attempted their genocide. The Armenians of Karabakh genuinely desire peace and are willing to discuss political solutions, such as a horizontal relationship with Azerbaijan, but they cannot accept subjugation to Azerbaijan. The credibility of the OSCE is at stake; it cannot be in its long-term interests to try to inflict a political solution which flouts the principles of justice and demonstrates the truth of Churchill's comment that the tragedy of the Armenian people is that blood is lighter than oil.
I therefore ask the Minister whether he can give an undertaking that any contribution made by Britain to the OSCE deliberations will respect both the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity.
Your Lordships will remember Hitler's cynical question before embarking on the genocide of Polish Jews: "Who now speaks of the Armenians?" This debate shows that there are people who still speak of the Armenians. If the international community betrays their just cause and relegates them to an unjust subjugation to Azeri Turks who have already attempted their genocide, we will continue to speak of them; and those who consign them to this fate, in the interests of economic gain or political expediency, will be criticised by us, and, I dare to venture, condemned by history.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Powis: My Lords, my father was shy of public speaking and believed he could help more with local matters than with broader political issues. He never in his short period as Earl felt he could usefully contribute to the House of Lords, although he did say that there were two issues which would bring him here: if it looked likely that capital punishment was about to be re-enacted, or if it looked likely that women were going to be denied the priesthood. The four-year delay before my maiden speech is in part because I am my father's son. I am nervous and would find it easier to stay at home, but I feel that the subject today is important.
Your Lordships may have noticed that, curiously, I am quoted in a recent Telegraph supplement already as a spokesman for your Lordships' House, having not yet spoken in it. I failed to resist the temptation to fill out a questionnaire on the House. I have attended as an observer a number of times and have noted that this House is an unusually benevolent and efficient entity.
158
I also feel that the House has, in its characteristic reticence, not managed to draw public admiration. So few know the truth and so many continue to believe that here is merely a gentleman's club where dining and whining are at public expense and where the inhabitants generally get in the way of sensible change.
Nagorno-Karabakh has a similar publicity problem but with dire consequences. It is a small and isolated Armenian community surrounded by Azerbaijan, a country which, the world on the whole allows, has a right to remove the traditional inhabitants and replace them with its own. As a member of Christian Solidarity International—CSI—I have been deeply concerned about the tragic conflict between Azerbaijan and Karabakh and the suffering it has caused to both Armenians and Azeris.
I am aware that a maiden speech should not be controversial, and I have found this to be a difficulty, particularly in the context of a war. But my focus is on the need for a secure peace, and the desperate need for humanitarian aid for the people of Karabakh, who have been denied help from major aid organisations.
I must first declare an interest, as a Christian. Karabakh has always been Armenian, as far back as 310 AD when Armenia became the first officially Christian nation. Karabakh has a number of ancient churches and Christian monuments, confirming its venerable Armenian history. Counter to this, chiefly because of Stalin's policies towards different cultures in the region, the Azeris feel that Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan, and this dispute is what lies behind the fighting in recent years between a country of 7 million Azeris and an enclave of 150,000 Armenians.
During the 1991 offensive, when Azerbaijan had overrun 40 per cent. of Karabakh, the Azeris tried to destroy all of these cultural evidences. Remarkably, this offensive was repelled. Churches and houses are now gradually being rebuilt. In this struggle 80,000 people had to flee to Karabakh's capital, Stepanakert, where bombardment and starvation made survival improbable. Major aid agencies did not help and this has remained largely the case since then. There is considerable suffering now in the enclave, and this will be worse when winter returns.
Azerbaijan has rich oil fields; it has inherited Soviet arms; and it has had publicity on its side because many visitors come to Azerbaijan in connection with oil, and they report the Azeri point of view. The Karabakhis have virtually no opportunity to present their plight because of the blockade. This, combined with the absence of humanitarian aid, puts Nagorno-Karabakh in a desperate situation. There is precedent for aid. In other disputes over territory in that region Christian aid agencies have helped both sides.
They are a people the world has forgotten. They have survived, but unless they receive a degree of recognition from Her Majesty's Government and others, their days are numbered. I do not have the time now to put before noble Lords the policy of ethnic cleansing stressed by a succession of Azeri leaders. This aim, together with the Karabakh concern to preempt it, can only lead to further bloodshed. A proper peace cannot come unless other

159
nations provide an impartial atmosphere. The prevailing tacit endorsement of the Azeri position can only contribute to more death and horror.
I therefore ask the Minister, first, whether Her Majesty's Government would recognise that Karabakh cannot accept Azeri sovereignty. Secondly, would the Government press for access by organisations so far excluded from Karabakh, who could meet the urgent needs of the civilians there? Thirdly, in the absence of such organisations, would the Government provide some assistance to organisations such as CSI, which are able to take in urgently needed aid?

I thank your Lordships for your patience. The time limits and the traditions of your Lordships' House, which expect a maiden speech to be brief, mean that I must stop.
8 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech. That he has chosen to support the noble Baroness in a noble cause—that of the human rights of a small and beleaguered group of people—and that he has done it so effectively and with no sign of the nerves that he mentioned, is a happy augury for this House. We look forward to hearing him again on many future occasions.
It is always an honour to be able to support the noble Baroness. She has often taken her life in her hands to bring help to beleaguered and suffering people and to tell the world about them, as she so well knows how to do. She has been in distinguished company—Andrei Sakharov, for one. But I have never admired her courage more than I do today.
After the Denver Summit 10 days ago, Russia, the United States and France commended the latest OSCE proposal for Nagorno-Karabakh. These,
"recognise the republic as a multi—ethnic autonomous identity under Azerbaijani sovereignty, with the right to its own constitution, emblem, national anthem and flag"—
very generous—
"and [proclaims it] a free economic zone with a budget financed exclusively from its own resources, and the right to its own national guard and military police".
The proposals go on to require the Karabakh armed forces to be withdrawn within the boundaries which existed in 1988, (i.e., the original Soviet-dictated borders). That would require the Armenian-occupied Lachin corridor—Nagorno-Karabakh's only access to Armenia and thus to the world, and the lifeline of the country for which it fought when Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey tried to cut it off—to be given up. The OSCE then proposes the following interesting plan,
"Around the 1988 borders the OSCE would create a sort of buffer zone, of which the parameters have not been set".
As for the Lachin corridor, it would be,
"leased to Azerbaijan by the OSCE"—
a very novel idea—
"which would set the borders and be responsible for the link between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Lachin district would come under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Azerbaijani refugees would be returned to Armenian-held territory".
160
Many of these Azerbaijanis are the equivalent of the Turks imported into northern Cyprus by Turkey.
The Caspian could become as much a flashpoint as the Middle East has been on occasion, and for the same reason—the presence of oil. The British, French, Russians, Americans, Turks, Japanese and even the Iranians now have substantial oil interests there, and so the governments concerned want to see peace in the area. I do not quarrel with that, but I do most strongly suggest that Azerbaijan needs us as much as we need them and we should be using the much-vaunted European Union, which believes it has a foreign policy entity, not to appease, but to exert influence in favour of a just settlement for a small and beleaguered Christian entity.
A US congressman who visited Nagorno-Karabakh in January said that the US must be persuaded that it could resolve the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh without damaging its oil interests in the Southern Caucases. It is in our long-term interest to do the same.
The OSCE proposals will have to be rethought. Whose troops would enforce the OSCE plan and for how long? We have many levers at our disposal to bring pressure to bear on the Azeris. They want to join the Council of Europe and are actually being encouraged to think that they can do so while they continue to abuse human rights. In January they had a large grant from the European Union to help Azerbaijani refugees who suffered in the conflict. What about those in Nagorno-Karabakh? The IMF, the World Bank, and the EBRD are all supporting the Azeris. Azerbaijan is a Partner for Peace. Let us put peace and genuine enforceable freedom for the country on the agenda for the first meeting of the NATO—Russian Council.
I believe that because of the very great importance that Russia as well as the West attach to stability and peace in the area, it is in our power, through NATO, because of the CFE treaty and many other things, through the Council of Europe and through all the major international funding bodies to whom the Azeris are supplicants, to exact a settlement which would preserve Nagorno-Karabakh's lifeline, the Lachin corridor, opening the country to investment and letting in UN aid and refugee agencies which are so conspicuous by their absence. I urge the Minister to recognise that our vital interests in the area, stability and trade, actually require us to exert a positive influence on Baku in relation to human rights rather than to appease them. I urge the Minister to recognise that. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have given a cautious welcome to the Denver statement because they need the great powers to be committed to a solution. But the OSCE plan is no solution at all for Nagorno-Karabakh itself and is in any case unworkable.
Finally, I suggest that BP should be strongly encouraged, in the interests of its own public relations, to indicate clearly to the Azeris that it is in their interest to work for a sensible and fair settlement.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I feel that I should start by expressing my sympathy for the very sad and unexpected bereavement suffered by my noble

161
friend Lady Cox whose husband died last Saturday. I feel sure that none of us who know her is surprised that she has decided to carry straight ahead with this debate, which she opened with her unique knowledge of the subject, her customary compassion and accuracy. Indeed, having been privileged to enjoy the friendship also of her late husband, Dr. Murray Cox, I am sure that that is exactly what he would have wished her to do.
I also join my noble friend Lady Park in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Powis, on his excellent and well informed maiden speech.
My justification for participating in the debate is that in the summer of 1991 I went with an international human rights delegation, led by my noble friend Lady Cox, on the second of her 32 missions to Nagorno-Karabakh. I have also read all of her reports of the 30 subsequent visits. In case anyone should think that my noble friend is in any way affected by Christian bias against the Azeris, I can tell your Lordships of one occasion, at the height of the conflict, when she asked me (in that rather irresistible way she has) if the charity which I founded would send what was for us a very large sum of money to support Azeri refugees. Medical Relief International (MERLIN) had obtained a promise of the sum in question from European Union sources, but it would have taken months to be paid, too late to help the refugees in question. I am glad to say that we were able to provide the bridging loan in question, plus some additional finance and MERLIN's mission was successful. But those Azeri refugees would not have been helped without the intervention of my noble friend Lady Cox.
The purpose of our visit in 1991 was to discover whether there was any truth in Armenian allegations about the savage clearance of the Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh, largely by Azeri OMON troops, but with Russian Soviet Spetznaz and political support. We also visited Baku, still under the communist control of Mr. Mutalibov at the time, and we went to Yerevan as well. Alas, the Armenian allegations certainly were true. Mr. Gorbachev was in London at the time, needing to make a good impression at the G7 talks. That may explain why we were allowed unprecedented access by Soviet helicopters to most of the villages in Nagorno-Karabakh which we asked to see.
I will not trouble noble Lords with the brutality of what we saw and heard. A full report, together with very distressing photographic evidence, was given to the Foreign Office at the time. Suffice to say that the Armenian villagers of Nagorno-Karabakh were ruthlessly cleared out to be replaced by Azeri inhabitants. At the time the Armenian population was almost entirely unarmed. Its crime was merely that Armenia had voted to secede from the Soviet Union whereas Azerbaijan had not yet done so. Of course, we went to a number of Azeri villages as well to hear their side of the story.
I have time to offer your Lordships only one impression from that process; it shows how different the two races are. Sometimes the villages were less than a mile apart, but the people had not intermarried. Each side accused the other of firing the first shots, but the
162
presence of so many Spetznaz troops made one suspect that they were perhaps the guilty party. Be that as it may, after so much bloodshed in the five years which followed our visit, peaceful cohabitation must be an impossible prospect, as my noble friend Lady Cox said.
I offer one other observation. Your Lordships' House has discussed the tragic plight of the Armenians at Karabakh perhaps half a dozen times in the past six years. Yet as far as I know, not a single one of your Lordships has yet spoken against the position born of such hard experience and so knowledgeably put forward by my noble friend Lady Cox. And this is in spite of the support which Azerbaijan inevitably attracts outside this Chamber because of her massive oil reserves.
Now that I have made the point, perhaps some noble Lord will come forward to say that my noble friend Lady Cox is wrong and that the Armenians, not the Azeris, are the villains of this terrible piece. All I can say is that I trust that the noble Lord in question, if he emerges, will read with care your Lordships' guidelines on the declaration of commercial interests before he dares to put forward such an absurd proposition.
No, my Lords, my noble friend is right. If the Armenians of Karabakh are returned to any form of Azeri control, yet more bloodshed must inevitably follow. The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh are Armenian and must be part of Armenia forever.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as chairman of the British-Armenian parliamentary group. As we have heard, we are discussing one of the potential powder kegs of the world today.
The ancient Armenian kingdom stretched from the Mediterranean to the Caspian. It was an area continually fought over by the Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Most recent was the genocide of 1915. That is a fact corroborated extensively in the Foreign Office files in Whitehall. It led to condemnation by all the leaders of what were later to be the victorious allies. But in 1918, nothing was done because Turkey was saying, "You need us against Bolshevism", as it did in 1945 when it said, "You need us against communism. Oh, and by the way, can we join NATO?"; and as it did at the break-up of the Soviet Union when it said, "We are a good export market".
In spite of all that evidence here, Her Majesty's Government are still about the only civilised Western Government who have not officially recognised the genocide of 1915. Perhaps this new Government will consider doing so, or are Turkish blandishments still too strong?
In 1920, Armenia chose to come under the protection of the Soviet Union because the Armenians preferred to be red rather than dead, as they certainly would have been had they remained independent and at the mercy of Turkey. Comrade Joseph Stalin, working on the old Roman principle of keeping the vassal states at loggerheads with each other so as not to cause him any trouble in Moscow, gave the Armenian province of

163
Artsek, now known as the Nagorno-Karabakh as an autonomous oblast to Azerbaijan and in the early 1930s cut the land links to Armenia proper at Lachin.
To keep the pot boiling, he then gave part of the old Armenian Khanate of Yerevan, now known as Nakhichevan, to Azerbaijan, although it had no land connection to Azerbaijan and a large part of Armenia lay in between.
Acting under the old Soviet constitution—I think it was Clause 60—covering the rights of self-determination subject to a referendum, Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence and secession from the Soviet Union on the latter's demise. Although Whitehall sanctimoniously wrings its hands and bleats the sanctity of the later Helsinki Agreement to preserve the status quo, in fact, the legal status quo at the time was an independent Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nakhichevan was the subject of ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan. Having a common border with Armenia, the Armenian inhabitants were able to leave but not so in Nagorno-Karabakh, whose inhabitants were cut off from Armenia proper.
As we have heard, two presidents of Azerbaijan are on record as saying that they will exterminate all Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and, after invasion, have continually tried to pursue a military solution. But the Armenians are front-line soldiers while the Azeris were always in the administrative corps of the old Soviet army. The result was obvious. Excellent though they are, it would be like putting up the Army Catering Corps against a brigade of Guards, a pretty obvious outcome in any battle. The Azeri invaders were kicked out and a cordon sanitaire was established to avoid shelling by Grad rockets, as we have heard from the noble Baroness. So there is no military solution.
But there is one development which can either ignite the powder keg or, in my opinion, create an enforced peace in the area. I refer to the vast quantities of oil under the Caspian Sea. When I was first in the Karabakh in 1993, I proposed at an interview that, as the Black Sea and Iran are out of the question, the only sensible way to get that oil out for world markets would be a pipeline from Baku and the Baku area, across Azerbaijan, through southern Armenia to Nakhichevan and there, via its common border with Turkey, to the presently under-used oil port at Sihan on the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, the drawback now is that the oil would be going into Turkey through an area where the Turks are now, with their true traditional Genghis Khan attitude, knocking hell out of the poor Kurds.
In that way, all participants would benefit and would have a measure of control, having their own tap which they could turn off. Also, under the Helsinki Agreement, the illegal blockade of Armenia by Turkey and Azerbaijan would come to an end. I use the simile that, if everyone has their hands on everyone else's throat, nobody will start squeezing.
The Macchiavellian oil companies, with their massive wealth, evidently silenced the UN Security Council when Azerbaijan invaded the Nagorno-Karabakh, and
164
they mounted a vast PR campaign against the Karabakhi Armenians, who were fighting for their homeland and against the ethnic cleansing with its attendant atrocities, as we have heard from the noble Baroness. Those companies are still actively subservient to Azerbaijan in the hope of good contracts, although it is still subject to doubt as to which nation owns what of the Caspian oil.
The recent announcement through OSCE that Nakhichevan should be linked to Azerbaijan by a land link is merely prompted by a desire for a route for the pipeline to pass wholly through Azerbaijan territory and give away yet another part of Armenia. Is that going to be another lever to try to obtain sovereignty by Azerbaijan over the Karabakh? If so, it will just be the match to the powder keg. Her Majesty's Government should please watch out and they should be grateful to the noble Baroness for asking this Question.
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this Question this evening with her usual indomitable courage at this time, matched only by her courage in all her activities around the world.
I congratulate also the noble Earl, Lord Powis, on his maiden speech. My wife had the pleasure of sitting at his feet when he was speaking in Swansea a few days ago and so I am not surprised at his eloquence. I hope that we shall see him here often.
I wish to ask the Government about the political settlement between the Azeris and the Armenians which has been mentioned by other noble Lords. The facts have been well documented this evening. There are 150,000 Armenians living in that enclave in Azerbaijan and their ancestors have been there for centuries and centuries.
The Azeris have talked quite clearly, from the president downwards, of their desire for ethnic cleansing to remove all Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeris tried to conquer the enclave but the Armenians held out extremely successfully, as has been said. There has been a ceasefire for three years but it is rather tremulous and not entirely working.
The suffering on both sides has been terrible. The fighting has caused misery, as has the bombing. Also, there is terrible suffering for those taken prisoner. That needs to be highlighted. Perhaps I may give a couple of instances. Most recently, there was an example of a young Azeri soldier who deserted to the Armenians because of the abuse that was taking place in Azerbaijan's army. It seems likely that that young man will now be given political asylum in Armenia. Other returning prisoners of war from Azerbaijan speak of systematic abuse and maltreatment. For instance, one man was beaten unconscious almost daily—sometimes three times a day—denied food and water, burnt with hot skewers and finally scarred with knives and cigarettes which left a cross etched on his back. Another example is that of a woman who was captured in August 1996 during the supposed ceasefire. She is now mentally ill as a result of multiple rape and other maltreatment endured at the hands of the Azeris. These horrific stories

165
bear further testimony to the asymmetry that is evident in this conflict and its continuation even during the ceasefire.
I should like to put three questions to the Minister. First, what is the present position with regard to OSCE activity and its supposed aim to bring to this area a settled, permanent and just peace? We all know how important that is. Obviously it is important to BP and the oil interests of other countries. It is essential to avoid the suffering, hardship and cruelty that has occurred. Both civilians and armed forces are suffering very much. The recent publicity given to the OSCE's activities has been discouraging. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more encouraging information about what that body is doing at the present time. Secondly, will the Government use their influence with both the Armenian and Azeri governments as well as with the OSCE to promote justice in the area? Thirdly, will the Government press for an independent public investigation of the violations of the third and fourth Geneva conventions and ensure that the results are publicised?
The Government have strongly emphasised their commitment to human rights. Human rights are being violated in these countries time and again. Will the Government do their utmost to ensure that they are properly and publicly investigated by people who do not have commercial interests in either country so that they are truly independent? I hope that that investigation will then be fully publicised.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to speak very briefly in the gap in support of my brave and noble friend Lady Cox. Some years ago I walked through the Peers' Dining Room and met her having tea with a group of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. She asked me to join her. I listened to their tragic stories of horror. They were brave, good Christian people. I happened to have with me a bunch of snowdrops which I was arranging at the Peers' Entrance. I gave the Armenians a snowdrop which they placed in their Bible. I told them that it was the flower of hope. My noble friend Lady Cox has been the snowdrop of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. She is their flower of hope.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I too rise to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Powis, on his maiden speech. It is appropriate that he should speak with such sensitivity, confidence and strength in this debate. He does so on a day when my noble friend Lady Cox has spoken from the heart. Her personal courage is second to none. Not least for that reason she remains greatly loved and admired by all with whom she works both inside and outside this House.
The principles of self-determination and territorial integrity have been at the heart of foreign policy and diplomacy across the centuries. Throughout the 20th century they have shaped our geopolitical landscape, and there is no doubt that they will continue to do so. If one were to compare maps of Europe throughout this
166
century, from its early years to its dying days, one would be able to chart the geographical and physical effects of modern territorial integrity and self-determination. It would become clear as one looked at the maps that such forces could be dangerous and harmful if unleashed and harnessed to the cause of extremism. Self-determination—the right of a people to govern themselves—is often a fine and praiseworthy goal, but self-determination extended too far can become separatism and nationalism, which we have seen lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide in our century. Territorial integrity—a nation's right to maintain its borders—has a justified place in international law, but not if it is extended too far and becomes territorial encroachment.
The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the resultant dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan is but one example of the destruction that these forces can wreak. The unresolved eight year-old conflict over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh continues to plague both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The stakes are very high. Neither country can achieve its economic potential while the dispute remains unresolved. The external trade embargo imposed by the Azerbaijani Government on Armenia has caused much economic hardship, while Azerbaijan cannot fulfil the estimated huge potential of the Caspian oil reserves with so much instability within its territory.
As my noble friend Lady Cox has argued, the Armenian parliament has understandably refused to accept any solution to the conflict which refers to Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, while Azerbaijan has annulled Nagorno-Karabakh's former autonomous status and prospects for negotiated settlement remain as elusive as ever.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer a few questions. Is it the Government's objective to maintain diplomatic relations with both countries but to continue with the imposition of the two arms embargoes imposed in 1992 as a result of a decision by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe? Is it the Government's view that any solution should be based on the sovereignty of Azerbaijan with real autonomy for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh?
One of the UK's priorities rightly has been to provide humanitarian relief to the estimated one million displaced people in Azerbaijan. To meet their needs is a keenly felt and urgent humanitarian requirement that arises from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Over £5 million in direct humanitarian relief has wisely been provided to Armenia since 1993. Since December 1992 the United Kingdom has provided almost £3.8 million in direct humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan, primarily to assist the displaced population. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government intend to continue this? Much of this has been channelled through the UNHCR, the World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross, MERLIN and Christian Solidarity International, bringing relief and food to the displaced population. Will this policy on disbursement continue?
Given their commitment to a human rights based foreign policy, I very much hope that the Government will continue the admirable work that has already been

167
done by the former Overseas Development Administration for the resettlement of refugees and the humanitarian relief of the populations of both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The UK has responsibility to both of these westward-looking countries to continue to take a proactive role in finding a solution to their dispute and in assisting to build the infrastructure and economic reforms through trade, investment and the exchange of know-how that will lead those countries to a peaceful and prosperous future.
There are three key areas in which I urge the Government to continue to act for the benefit of the region and the global community. First, there is an historic opportunity to change the face of this region dramatically. I urge the Government to continue to play a role in this by subscribing fully to the OSCE principle that frontiers are inviolable and can be changed only peacefully by agreement. Any change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be mutually agreed with the authorities of the countries concerned. The right to self-determination does not equate automatically to a right to succession.
Secondly, the UK has a fine record for the sharing of ideas with policy makers in the Caspian region. The United Kingdom has a diplomatic presence in both countries, and there have been regular high level visits on both sides since diplomatic relations were established. I urge the Government to continue the work of the Know How Fund. This has enabled both Armenia and Azerbaijan to benefit from the wealth of expertise in the United Kingdom on subjects ranging from privatisation to environmental legislation.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will continue their assistance to British companies operating and trading in the region. Trade is the key to long-term success for the nations of the former Soviet Union, which cannot build firm relations with the West unless international business invests resources to help entrench real independence from Russia.
In conclusion, I fear that the disputes caused by movements of self-determination and the resultant conflicts to maintain territorial integrity can never be relegated to the history books. However, over the past 17 years the UK has always been ready to act with the international community, and to play a full and respected role in finding a solution to such conflicts. I wish the Government well in ensuring that that reputation remains intact and untarnished.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating the debate. Her presence in distressing circumstances demonstrates only too clearly her commitment to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Everything she said, echoed by other noble Lords, indicates that. I commend the moving and informed maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Powis. I trust that now he has decided to take an active oral part in the business of the House he will continue to find us benevolent and, it is hoped, even efficient.
168
In her report of Christian Solidarity International's visit to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the noble Baroness noted that a just and lasting peace would enable the region to develop its economic potential and democratic process to the full. The Government entirely agree with that objective. The region has great potential. Unfortunately, the immediate consequences of independence from Soviet rule were catastrophic ethnic conflicts and horrendous human rights abuse leading to disruption of economic, commercial and private life, not just in Nagorno-Karabakh but in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia.
Since the ceasefire in 1994 in Nagorno-Karabakh all three countries have taken drastic and successful measures which have improved their position, but the human rights problems remain. The noble Baroness says that she is an advocate of the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh. I respect that and the position taken in support of the Armenian cause by other noble Lords. There are two sides to the issue. It may well be that the aggression in response to the declaration of independence was started by the Azeris, but 20 per cent. of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan is under Armenian occupation. There are 900,000 Azerian refugees and 300,000 Armenian refugees. We have heard horrific stories from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and others.
Within Azerbaijan itself, the human rights position still causes the Government concern. Human rights organisations are concerned about breaches of due process in trials of political prisoners. We and our partners within the EU have urged the Azeri authorities, and will continue to do so, to move towards democratic reform; to allow political parties access to the media; and to establish an independent electoral position. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords asked whether I could give a commitment that the Government would put pressure on the Azeris to follow down that road. We will do so directly and with our partners in the EU. The authorities in Azerbaijan realise that progress on human rights must be a condition of the entry to the Council of Europe which they seek, and that human rights performance is one of the criteria taken into account in the partnership and co-operation agreement with the EU.
Against that tragic background, the Government have been working to try to encourage all three Transcaucasus states to perceive their common interests. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to aid under the previous government. Between 1992 and 1994 nearly £1 million was given in aid to agencies working with refugees and internally displaced people as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Since 1992 over £9 million has also been given in bilateral emergency relief to Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is the Government's intention to continue that generous policy.
The noble Earl, Lord Powis, referred to possible help for Christian Solidarity International. He will be aware that there was a grant of £327,000 to that organisation. We will look at the position in future. The best form of aid in these circumstances is bilateral; that is, aid which goes to both sides—to Armenia, and thereby to Nagorno-Karabakh, and to the Azeris.

169
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the Government's position on the relationship between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also asked about that. The OSCE's principles guiding relations between participating states were adopted in 1975. The second of those principles refers to the inviolability of internationally recognised frontiers, and the fourth refers to the territorial integrity of states.
The Government have not yet reviewed the position in relation to the Caucasus developments, but our principal position is that the OSCE principles that frontiers are inviolable is the only sensible way of proceeding in international relations. Any change in the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has to be mutually agreed by the authorities of the countries concerned. Territorial integrity is, after all, at the heart of the UN and the OSCE's approach to international relations, and whether international boundaries were imposed by history or Soviet imperialism, or by any other form of imperialism elsewhere in the world, our approach has always been that those boundaries can be altered only by agreement.
The eighth OSCE principle relates to self-determination. It is worth mentioning that for the purposes and principles of the UN Charter that is operative with reference to the relevant norms of international law. They include not just references to human rights but those relating to territorial integrity of states. Our position on the issue does not apply just to Nagorno-Karabakh. It applies throughout the world, but in particular in that part of the world it applies to Abkhazia where we have made clear our support for the territorial integrity of Georgia.
A number of accusations have been made that the position of Her Majesty's Government, of the previous government and of other countries, has been swayed unduly by commercial interests within Azerbaijan. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, went as far as to suggest that the UN Security Council was persuaded by such motives. I cannot answer for every country, but although the UK has major commercial and oil-based interests in Azerbaijan our support for the integrity of the borders of Azerbaijan predated Britain's involvement in the exploitation of Caspian oil. Indeed, the first major oil contract was not signed until 1994. We do not let the oil interests affect our policy. It is interesting that 53 out of the 54 OSCE member states supported maintaining the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Many have no commercial or other interests within Azerbaijan. Our approach is shared by the international community as a whole.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and others asked about the position of the OSCE. At its summit in Lisbon in December, the OSCE's chairman-in-office issued a statement which, as I said, was supported by 53 out of 54 member states. The exception of course was Armenia. That confirmed that three principles should form the basis of the settlement. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that they are, first, the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia and the
170
Azerbaijan Republic; secondly, the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh to be defined in an agreement based on self-determination to the highest degree possible; and, thirdly, the guaranteed security for Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population, including mutual obligations to ensure compliance by all parties with the provisions of the settlement.
The Government's view continues to be that these three principles should provide the framework for an agreement. The key question is the degree of autonomy that Nagorno-Karabakh will have, in particular in relation to the human and democratic rights of its population. The Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh needs to be reassured on how its future security, so seriously threatened by recent years of conflict, can be protected. The British Government, with their commitment to human rights, will ensure that the international community puts the issue central to reaching an agreement on this difficult matter.
The international community has worked extremely hard since 1992 to try to find a settlement. The OSCE has mandated its Minsk Group to lead international effort to resolve the conflict. Since the beginning of this year, the group has been led by a troika of the US, Russia and France. Although the United Kingdom is not a member of that group, we are giving full support to its efforts. Your Lordships will have noticed that Presidents Clinton, Yelstin and Chirac emphasised in a side statement at Denver their commitment to that process.
The noble Baroness and others referred to the maintenance of the ceasefire. That is, indeed, a positive sign. There have been intermittent violations of the ceasefire, which demonstrates that the situation remains fragile. We would urge all parties to maintain restraint while the OSCE initiative is followed through. It is, however, the unfortunate fact that all parties seem to believe that time is on their side. The Karabakhis have established military control over the enclave and occupied large surrounding areas. For their part, some in Azerbaijan argue that once the oil starts flowing they will be able to re-arm and recommence the aggression. We must all agree that such attitudes are dangerously misguided and could lead to the kind of conflagration referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.
This region ought to be prosperous and peaceful and have many resources and it ought to work together. If the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh were resolved, surely we could begin the new developments; that is, transport, pipelines and other economic developments in the area. There is no doubt that the resumption of hostilities, if it occurred, would be a disaster for all sides. It is therefore absolutely essential that the parties in the region, plus the international community, give very serious consideration indeed to the latest proposals of the Minsk Group and commit themselves to negotiating

171
in good faith. We in the United Kingdom Government trust that they will do that and will give them every help.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.43 to 8.45 p.m.]

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, after ("and") insert ("income").
The noble Lord said: As a result of the amendment and the others grouped with it, the question will be related to the income tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament. I shall be reasonably brief, but the history is interesting.
The final document of the Constitutional Convention was clear on the agreed position between the parties to that convention. I quote from the paragraphs headed, "Secure and stable finances". The document states:
"and upon the limited power of the parliament to vary the basic rate of income tax".—
As regards the variation of income tax, it states:
"The Scottish parliament will have the power to increase or cut the basic rate of income tax for Scottish taxpayers by a maximum of 3p. in the pound. This will give it a greater degree of independence".
I am not entirely sure about that argument, but five lines further up the document states:
"Scotland will no longer be directed by Scottish Office Ministers who lack popular support".
I wonder how that applies, to the current incumbents of the Scottish Office. I would have thought that they had reasonable popular support. But, there you are, the powers that be obviously never thought for a minute that the party opposite would regain power. I thought that myself for a while, but you live and learn.
The basic point is that the Constitutional Convention was perfectly clear: increase or cut the basic rate of income tax for Scottish taxpayers. The Labour Party's manifesto, which about four weeks ago I was advised to keep beside my bed in order to know all the answers to all the questions, varied from that. It stated:
"In the Scottish referendum we will seek separate endorsement of the proposal to create a parliament, and of the proposal to give it defined and limited financial power to vary revenue".
There is a bit of a difference between the position in the document of the Constitutional Convention, which was to vary the basic rate of income tax, and the manifesto of the party opposite, which was simply to vary revenue.
I do not know whether there is any significance in that. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will tell me whether or not there is. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of
172
Kirkford, in his intervention in a previous debate said that he was clear in his mind that if the Scottish parliament attempted to vary any tax other than income tax—I am not sure about that and may return to the question in a moment—that would be outside its powers. It would not be able to do it. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, correctly, he made it clear that this proposal was solely about income tax. I see that he agrees with my memory about what he said. The proposal is solely about income tax.
Although this amendment may not he the proper place to explore it, there is a problem concerning the basic rate of income tax. There is a huge difference between varying the basic rate of income tax by plus or minus 3p and varying the 20p or the 40p rates of income tax. I wonder whether one of the problems attendant upon this issue, which I referred to earlier, as reported in The Scotsman by Mr. Peter MacMahon, is that the Treasury may be saying that they might not always have a basic rate of income tax. Given modern technology I have little doubt that it would be possible to have rates of income tax of 10p, 20p, 30p and 40p, let us say. Perhaps the Labour Party will go higher than that but I think they said in their manifesto that they would not. Therefore none of these rates would he defined, as we currently define the 23p rate, as the basic rate of income tax. I do not ask the question with any great expectation of an answer, but it would be interesting if the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when he answers, would deal with this point. Perhaps, in the interests of open government, he will tell us whether or not this is a bit of a problem.
If you define powers relative to the basic rate of income tax, it becomes rather difficult if at some stage in the future the basic rate of income tax ceases to have any meaning because the rates have been changed. Also, if it is based on the basic rate of income tax it is pretty regressive, because only a small portion of the Scottish electorate will be taxed. Obviously all taxpayers will pay 23 per cent. or above, but the tax will fall most heavily on those who only pay 23 per cent. Those who pay 40 per cent. will not have 3p added to their tax. Therefore, I should like to have confirmation as to the basic rate.
Turning to the purpose of my amendment, during the last debate in answer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the Government Benches, both Front and Back, said that they were in no doubt that the tax was to be income tax and anybody who suspected that VAT or excise duty would be varied, or perhaps a property tax could be added to the existing council tax, or any other variation, was quite simply wrong and indulging in scare tactics. I would never do that, but I wonder why, if it is as clear cut as I am being told, the matter is not being put clearly.
I cannot believe that my amendment is not perfect so far as the parliamentary draftsmen are concerned. Even I could not get the drafting of an amendment of this degree of simplicity wrong, and so I hope that the noble Lord might remember what he said earlier in the debate and do what he has assured the Committee is the Government's intention: that is, only to have variation on income tax. I see no difficulty at all in the noble Lord accepting my amendment. It would certainly be the most

173
amazingly pleasurable start to my brief time in opposition if I were to have an amendment accepted by the Government at this early stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My concern about income tax is that it is a tax based upon where you are employed, as against, say, council tax, which has to do with one's home. I am not an expert on taxes, and in fact I employ an accountant to look after my tax affairs and have never attempted to do that myself. For example, I was for a while employed by an English company and my tax returns went to the office close to Bishop Auckland in County Durham. What concerns me to some extent is that, if we are talking about income tax, I would have thought it would be fairly easy for many companies to move their registered office to England and perhaps avoid paying some of the tax. Equally, if a person is domiciled in England but working for a Scottish company whose registered office is in Scotland, are they not likely to pay Scottish income tax rather than English income tax? That is one of my concerns. I quite realise there is going to be an income tax.
Also there is the question of corporation tax. Does that come into the calculation? As I understand it, the basic rate of income tax is 23 per cent. whereas corporation tax is about 40 per cent. These are the sorts of problems which concern me as a Scot domiciled in Scotland. I may be wrong, but I have always felt that your tax was based on your place of employment and not necessarily on where you live. That is one of the things that worries me about the tax-varying powers, particularly in connection with income tax.
Lord Sewel: I do not intend to repeat the points I made in reply to the debate on the earlier amendment, but perhaps I could take up a couple of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. Let me make it absolutely clear that we will obviously be producing our details on taxation in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, makes the point that we may move in time from the concept of a basic rate. I accept that is possible: the concept may actually evolve and disappear. That is why we are taking time to make sure that the White Paper is sufficiently detailed to cover this sort of point and that is why I am not being as detailed and explicit as in some cases the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wishes me to be at this time. These are matters which need a degree of thought and precision built into them.
As to whether the tax will be raised on the place of work or the place of residence, I have to say that all the thinking is in terms of place of residence. Where you live will actually determine whether you are liable to the additional power of the Parliament. These amendments, like those we discussed earlier, are intended to clarify the nature of the tax-varying powers of the Scottish parliament upon which the electorate will be invited to vote in the referendum. The purpose is to change the reference from tax-varying powers to refer specifically to income tax.
During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn assured the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, that the only tax-varying power that the
174
Government have in mind for a Scottish parliament relates to income tax and that it would be confined to 3p in the pound. That is the point I tried to make clear in my reply to the earlier debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and also the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, proposed that this should be reflected in the Bill. While I fully understand and appreciate the intention behind these amendments, I do not believe they are necessary. Like the group of amendments that we considered earlier, they fundamentally misunderstand the process whereby our proposals for tax-varying powers will be enacted.
As I have already explained, the proposition to be put to the people in Scotland in the referendum is one of principle and principle alone: should a Scottish parliament have tax-varying powers? In responding to that proposition, I should stress that voters will have the benefit of the White Paper which will set out our proposals fully and clearly, including our detailed proposals on how the tax-varying powers may operate. I believe that that covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
As I said earlier, the combination of the clear statement of principle in the propositions in the ballot paper, together with a clear reference in the preamble to the Government's proposals (also detailed on the ballot paper) and the details of our proposals as set out in the White Paper is, in our view, a fair and sensible way to proceed.
I return to the point that I made earlier. It is not the detail upon which the people will be voting; it is the principle. Assuming a positive outcome to the referendum—and I do not have the slightest doubt about that—the details of how such a power will operate will be contained in the main devolution legislation. Therefore, there is no possibility of a Scottish parliament somehow abrogating to itself additional powers to tax. Indeed, that will be defined and limited in the Bill which sets up the Scottish parliament. That legislation will be subject to full scrutiny both in this Chamber and another place. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated that his amendment was a relatively small one. However, on this occasion I have to tell him that, although it may be small, it is not quite perfectly formed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The Minister says that the detail is to be spelt out in the White Paper—namely, that such tax-raising or lowering power applies only to income tax. I am sorry, but we have not yet seen the White Paper and indeed we do not know when we shall see it. If my assumption is true, what is the objection to spelling it out in the question in the referendum?
Lord Sewel: I believe I dealt with this point on a number of occasions during the course of today's debate. The Government are approaching the whole issue by putting before the people of Scotland in the referendum points of principle. The point of principle is the power to vary tax; the point of detail, which will be covered in the White Paper and upon which I have given assurances on several occasions this evening, and indeed previously, will relate only to income tax. Our objection

175
to going beyond principle is that once you get into detail you cannot actually stop. As I said, you go through the process of identifying that it is income tax, the fact that it is 3p income tax, the fact that it is related to where a person lives—the point made by the noble Earl opposite—and you go into more and more detail and finish up with a question which runs into paragraphs. That is the problem. Similarly, if you applied the same approach on the question of powers, it would not run into paragraphs; indeed, it would run into pages. Therefore we have deliberately adopted the approach of identifying and focusing on principle, backing that up through reference in the White Paper.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Surely that is the problem with having a referendum on a White Paper before you have legislation. If you had a referendum after the legislation on what was actually in the Bill and had been through Parliament, there would not be such a problem.
Lord Sewel: As I said before, the purpose of the referendum is to demonstrate the degree of support which exists in Scotland and Wales for the Government's proposals. That is the purpose.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am increasingly confused. As the Minister repeatedly says that it is all so simple, the fault is obviously my own. I believe that the amendment expresses precisely what the Government propose to do. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have said exactly that. However, all the Minister can say now is that it is a point of principle. Why is it a point of principle to ask the Scottish people the misleading question, "Do you agree to tax-varying powers", but not a point of principle to ask them, "Do you agree to varying a power to vary income tax"? I cannot see why one is a point of principle and not the other.
As I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clear up a matter where, again, I have been left confused. I refer to the previous debate. What would be the financial effect on Scotland of reducing taxation? The noble Lord said that if you reduced taxation by, say, 3p on the basic rate, that would cost £450 million. Therefore, there will be that amount less to spend on the services. However, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, went further and said, as I understand it, that the Barnett formula, which I think we ought to call the Barnett-Rees formula, the block grant, would be reduced by an equivalent amount which seems to me to amount to £900,000. I apologise if I have misunderstood and I shall gladly give way.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that we may later want to move from the basic rate, but there is nothing in the amendment about the basic rate; it is merely about income tax. If the real answer is, "We don't intend to accept any amendments because we don't want the Bill to go back to the other place", it
176
would be better if the noble Lord would say so. We could then save our breath to cool our porridge. I hope that that idiom will appeal to the noble Lord.
Lord Sewel: The Government will look upon all amendments. If, in our view, certain amendments add to and improve the Bill, we will accept them and then, by definition, they will have to return to the other place for consideration. There is no attempt to confine consideration in this Chamber to prevent amendments being moved and accepted; indeed, that would be most improper. If they are amendments which improve the Bill, they will have our support in this Chamber and they will automatically go to the other place.
I deeply regret that I have so far failed to satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have tried to satisfy him. He made two points, of which one escapes me. However, he asked what would happen if the Scottish parliament reduces taxation. I tried to spell that out in the debate on the previous amendment. If the parliament decreases the tax, clearly the Inland Revenue's tax take will be reduced, and, to reflect this, the overall level of resources passed to the Scottish parliament through the block and formula approach will have to be reduced by a similar amount. I hope that that deals with the issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been an interesting short debate. However, I did not think it would be as long as it has been. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put her finger on the matter when she said that if we had had the referendum after the Bill had been enacted we would not be having this trouble with these questions. I hope that the Government are not blaming anyone for having to go into these details, because this is a hole of their own making. They did not need to go down this road.
It seems to me that the principal question is the first one. I should have thought one could argue that the second question is a detail. It is just as much a detail as the matter of how the block grant will be arranged, or the matter of the voting arrangements for the parliament. The Government have got themselves into this trouble because they have asked this second question. I am sorry that the Minister has to defend the pretty indefensible, but that is the simple fact of the matter.
Having started to ask the question, we are entitled—as are the Scottish people—to ask for absolute clarity. If the noble Lord is telling me—as he is again—that this measure will concern only income tax, I fail to understand why that cannot be included in the question. It does not add too many words—just one word—it does not make it more complicated; it simply makes it clearer. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. He could have accepted this amendment and it would have helped to clarify the situation. However, I shall read what we said in this debate and what we said in the debate before supper. I may return to this issue at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("tax-varying powers") and insert ("power to raise or lower taxes").
The noble Earl said: At last I come to my amendment, which is grouped with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I fully understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that it was important to break for supper rather than discuss this amendment at an earlier point.
I move my amendment despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dealt with it generally when dealing with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. He made it clear that he felt the issue to be one of principle. I understand that the Scottish parliament should have revenue raising powers. But, if that is so, I wonder why we do not make that clearer. I do not like the words "tax-varying powers". The noble Lord also said that in practice the only thing that would occur would be a 3 per cent. variation in income tax. If that is firmly the view of the Government, why do they not say so?
Given that there must be flexibility on all these matters, I should have hoped that the Government would consider my amendment which instead of using the words "tax-varying powers"—which I think can mean all things to all men—would make it quite clear that what is proposed is to have powers to raise or lower taxes. Having listened to this debate I have come to the conclusion that to ask the Government to accept the words "or lower taxes" is perhaps wrong. My reason for saying that is that I have heard that, if the parliament lowers taxes, all that will happen is that the block grant will be reduced by the same amount. We are being asked, "Do you agree to raise taxes?" because lowering them means nothing.
My second point arises from what I have heard in this debate and outside the Chamber. Are we wise to have the second question at this time? In its first life, the Parliament at Westminster will have many issues to debate which will take up all its time. Would it not be better to defer the question of the principle on tax-raising powers to a later stage, to a second Parliament? There is nothing to stop the Government at that time, if they wish and are still in power, to have a second referendum directed to this all-important point of principle: is the Scottish parliament in principle to have revenue-raising powers? I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As my name is to the amendment, perhaps I may say that, although I strongly agree with the objectives of my noble friend Lord Perth, I should prefer the amendment to refer to the power to raise income tax. My noble friend's point about lowering tax is valid. Therefore I shall not comment on it. But the fact that it is income tax which is involved should be spelt out.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I am at some loss. I have to say with the utmost respect to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I believe I have covered these points in some detail and may be in danger of losing the attention of the Committee if I seek to rehearse the arguments yet again.
The Earl of Perth: I shall not divide the Chamber on the issue at this rather late hour. It is true that it has
178
been covered. However, I hope that all Members of the Committee will read Hansard and note what is in my opinion an unsatisfactory answer to my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Parliament") and insert ("Assembly").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be pleased to know that the amendments in the group are identical. They are simple and brief. Their significance is in inverse proportion to their length.
The issue is this. What are we being invited to bring into being? Perhaps I may revert to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who I see is once again in his seat. The issue is germane to the Bill. What we are discussing are the words on the face of the ballot paper, which I submit are misleading. The reason for the large group of amendments is simple. In order to have consistency throughout the Bill we need to make the amendment in a series of different places.
The argument for this amendment has already been put forward on a number of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made it earlier in the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made similar points, as have other Members of the Committee. What will be the body that it is suggested that we bring into being? Is it actually a parliament?
I was brought up to be a simple, straightforward countryman. I suspect that my view of Parliament is that held by many people across the length and breadth of this land. In saying that, I do not refer just to England but to Scotland, Wales and that part of Ireland which is appropriate; and it may even be that the Irish in the rest of Ireland hold a similar view. The English Parliament is rather special and rather particular. It is known as the Mother of Parliaments. It has been the basis on which democracy has been spread across the face of the globe in the past 50 years. Where democracy works successfully, it is where it closely parallels the organisation that we have in this country. The first thing we have is a bicameral organisation. I shall not get into a debate as to which House within the bicameral organisation is supreme and which superior. I think we know the answer: one is superior and the other supreme.
Having said that, Parliament works because it is democratic. It works because the electors, the elected representatives who are their servants and their elected representatives choose a government. I know that we have a party system which corrupts that, but it is what is supposed to happen. The Government are the servant of Parliament, the servant of the whole of Parliament, not exclusively of the elected representatives. Still less is the relationship the other way round, which has increasingly been the trend of modern times and which is regrettable. That is what I and the majority of people understand to be a parliament. But it is not what we are bringing into being. Whatever else it may be, it is not that. It is also the international perception of the best way of constructing a parliament. For that reason, I do not like the wording that we have.
Of course, it could be argued that there is a difference between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in Wales. It could be argued that the Scottish assembly—I would prefer that word, as my amendment suggests—will have legislative powers. I have had a lot to do with local government which can bring in by-laws; so local government—if that is a definition—is, in a sense, a parliamentary form, but it does not bear the word "parliament" and it works extremely well without it.
Exactly the same point could be made with regard to tax-raising powers. Local government used to have far greater tax-raising powers, only constrained by the capping regime. If there is any local authority left in this country which is not constrained by the capping regime, such authorities have greater freedom of power over taxation than it is suggested the new body for Scotland will have.
So I seriously suggest that to put on the face of the ballot paper that a Scottish parliament is being created is misleading. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. I am quite happy to relieve the Minister of one burden in his reply by saying that at this stage the amendment is a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing what is said this evening on the subject. When I have read it all and considered the matter further, it is only fair to say that I may wish to bring it back. But at the moment it is a probing amendment.
Lord Hughes: Before the noble Lord concludes, more than once he referred to the "English Parliament" instead of the "UK Parliament". Part of the trouble in Scotland is that too many people consider that the UK Parliament acts as if it were an English Parliament.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I stand corrected and regret my error. Of course I meant to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament. If I inadvertently gave the wrong impression, I am happy to withdraw the phrase and put the correct one in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I do not find myself in agreement with the amendments. I was slightly puzzled by something that was said in the introduction to the amendments. I may be mistaken but I understood the noble Lord to say that a bicameral situation was essential for a democratic parliament. I know many countries all over northern Europe where there are perfectly good democratic parliaments. None has a bicameral parliament. I am thinking of all the Nordic countries, none of which has a bicameral arrangement. So I do not think that that is an essential element for a democratic parliament. Let us get that out of the way, to start with.
As regards substituting the word "assembly" for "parliament", I shall be brief because it is late. There are two powerful reasons for the proposal. The kind of powers we plan to give to the Scottish parliament make it absolutely appropriate that we use the word "parliament" and not "assembly". It is important to do so for the Scottish structure, in order to differentiate it from the Welsh assembly which, as the noble Lord
180
pointed out, has quite different powers. So it is very different. They are two different words for two quite different structures. That is the first point.
The second point is that it is quite important to get everybody's mind—including the minds of noble Lords in this Chamber and those in another place as well as the minds of the people in Scotland and Wales—off 1979. It was a Scottish assembly then. This is a very different animal that is proposed and it deserves a different name. I see nothing wrong with this body being called a Scottish parliament and I see everything wrong with it being called a Scottish assembly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need not be ashamed of referring to the "English" Parliament. Nearly all the English do it. It is a little weakness that they have. They cannot help it. I do not object to it. They are entitled to their little delusions. But it does raise the hackles of a number of Scots and it is unfortunate. It gives rise to much of the separatism in the Scottish National Party. So I have long been for a Scottish parliament. I have always wanted it to be a Scottish parliament; "assembly" does not sound right.
Indeed, for years the Stormont Parliament, which was technically very efficient, was called a parliament. There is a precedent. I do not believe that the name raises any trouble. I am surprised that a man of the noble Lord's perception should not see that it is only right and proper that we should have a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly, if they will accept it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I missed the first minute of my noble friend's speech, for which I apologise to the Committee. This is quite an important matter. People in Scotland have been expecting this body to be called the Scots parliament through the whole story of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It is the name that they are expecting. What they do not yet understand and must understand before they vote is the relationship of the Scots parliament to the United Kingdom Parliament. That will be very important indeed; otherwise, there will be great disillusionment later on.
That relationship was very well expressed, as my noble friend said, by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I hope that we shall see that in black and white in some of the public print before too long. It will help everybody to understand that relationship. So long as we have that, I personally do not think that the name matters.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is quite right about this matter. The problem with the word "assembly" is "What does it actually mean?". I think that it means a gathering. It does not have any connotations of a legislative body so far as I know. Historically, it has connotations of social gatherings—the kind of gatherings that took place in the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh and in various other towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th centuries. So, we must be careful about this matter.

181
At the same time, I have reservations about "parliament". After all, "parliament", unless it is a sovereign parliament, seems a bit misleading too. I am in rather a difficulty here.
Earl Russell: The social context to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, alludes is not quite the right one. In Scottish history the word "assembly" normally means the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Applying it to the body we now propose is about as appropriate as calling the body wherein we are now sitting a senate.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I take the point. But there are other connotations as well, if the noble Earl will forgive me.
Lord Hughes: On a more trivial point, the word "assembly" occurs in many parts of Scotland in towns and cities. There are places called "assembly rooms" and that has nothing to do with parliament.
The Earl of Perth: My memory may be wrong, but when in 1979 we held a referendum on devolution, it was in relation to an assembly and to a parliament. There is a lot of merit in it. The Church of Scotland assembly has, in relation to its duties, legislative powers. I would have hoped that we would apply the same distinction, using the word "assembly" rather than "parliament" which will be confused in many people's minds with the British Parliament.
Lord Kennet: I cannot forbear from pointing out that the word "assembly" is the one used by the French equivalent of the House of Commons. The lower House of their parliament is the National Assembly.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: Perhaps I can cap that. Before the war it was called the Chamber of Deputies. Does it matter what we call it? We know what it is.
Lord Sewel: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the positive and genuinely constructive and conciliatory way in which he moved his amendment. I also hope that, perhaps having heard from a number of Members throughout the Chamber, he will reflect that the term "assembly" may not be the most appropriate term to apply to the body we have in mind.
Basically, the argument is simply that we will be setting up a legislature. By definition it will have law-making powers. We also intend for it to have—I must be extremely careful in this regard—tax-varying powers as well. When we put the two together we get something which justifies the description of a "parliament". We cannot say that the law-making powers of local government to enact by-laws come close to the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament which will be able to legislate across a wide range of subjects. It is not a runner to make that sort of comparison.
182
In this context it is important to look back to the Scottish assembly proposals in 1979. Our new proposals differ significantly from the proposals that were made at that time and we should rightly seek to differentiate that model of the Scottish assembly from what we now see as a Scottish parliament. It will have much greater powers across a broader range of subjects and take on the tax-varying power as well.
It is also appropriate to look across to the proposals for Wales where there is not a law-making function. That is why the term "assembly" is used there and the term "parliament" used for the Scottish proposals. It is wrong to force a common template—a common nomenclature—on these bodies. We must identify what is the most appropriate way of differentiating and describing the various bodies that we propose to set up. The idea of a Welsh assembly is a good one. The idea of a Scottish parliament is equally sound and I hope that, having heard the debate, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say what will happen if the Scottish people vote yes to the first question and no to the second? That will leave the whole issue of assembly versus parliament in the melting pot.
Lord Sewel: That is the real hypothetical question. I think I am just about wise enough to know not to answer hypothetical questions. Perhaps I may say that I do not for one moment anticipate the Scottish people voting anything other than "yes, yes".
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am not really surprised at the response I have received. Perhaps I may use one old saying: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or so I am told. The difficulty in this situation is that, as so many speakers have already said this evening, we do not know whether we are looking at a rose or at something else. We do not have the substantive legislation that is required for us to have that knowledge. I am quite happy at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("as set out in a White Paper to be published and debated by each House of Parliament not less than six weeks before such a referendum").
The noble Lord said: This amendment once again addresses the question of the White Paper, on which the Government have rested much of their case against the amendments we have bought forward today—largely, "Wait until you receive the White Paper, all will be revealed and then there will be no problem, and the people of Scotland and Wales will be able to vote in the knowledge that all the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed". If all the i's had been dotted and the t's crossed I would have preferred to see a Bill, even a draft Bill, but I suppose the best we shall get is a White Paper.
Earlier today we discussed the question of fixing the date of 2nd October. Then I discovered—and entirely understood why we could not have that—that the date was in the middle of the Labour Party conference. However, approaching the matter from a slightly different direction, I think it is important that we say something about the distance there ought to be between the production of the White Paper, and more particularly the debate on the White Paper in both Houses, and the referendum itself.
I have no less an authority than the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who, in the Second Reading debate, speaking, I suppose, for the Government from the Back Benches, said that the White Papers, with their detailed proposals, would be published before the House rose for the Summer Recess and that there would be plenty of time for us to have debates. I am delighted to hear that. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has said the same.
It is one thing for us to have debate but I think there has to be debate in Scotland. I know I shall be told that there has been debate for 18 years. I beg to differ on that. There has been debate in certain newspapers and among certain groups but I have never found this to be "the" topic of conversation in the hostelries, restaurants and other meeting places of the public. It certainly is not the topic of conversation one meets on the Ibrox stands on a Saturday. I do not actually think the Scottish public spend most of their waking hours discussing whether or not they will have a Scottish parliament.
Lord Sewel: Does the noble Lord agree that one sign of the active debate that has occurred in Scotland over the past 20 years is the fact that so many of his friends have changed their minds?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure to which of my friends from 1979 the noble Lord is referring. But I can think of one or two. I did not want to get into this but I have to say that I spent many happy evenings on the referendum campaign with a certain Mr. Brian Wilson. We were not debating against each other; we were actually on the same side—very clearly on the same side. The noble Lord comes from Aberdeen. I may be wrong but I think I am right in saying that the then Member for Aberdeen, North was not exactly too keen on the devolution proposal in 1979. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, told me that I must not revisit 1979. I hope she will not blame me for being tempted to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
In this debate I shall refer to the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, which I mentioned earlier. I quote from paragraph 85 of its report:
"The difficulty with a pre-legislative referendum is that important aspects of the issue put to the electorate might be changed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. Referendums on complex measures which Parliament would wish to debate in detail—for example, the pre-legislative referendums relating to devolution in Scotland and Wales—could make it hard to ensure that the electorate knew what it was voting for. One means of ensuring that the electorate was aware of the issues involved would be through the publication of a White Paper. This would enable the Government to
184
set out the detail and the policy implications of the Bill to be presented to Parliament. A draft Bill could also be published and laid before Parliament".
I agree with that. I thought that we were going to have a draft Bill. The Prime Minister said that, but he appears to have retreated from that statement. We know that we are going to have a White Paper. I hope that the noble Lord will clarify one thing about it. After the first debate some of my noble friends and I had an argument about what the noble Lord said. I thought he said that he would announce the date of publication of the White Paper at Report stage. One of my noble friends thought that he said that it would be published by Report stage. I would be grateful for clarification. If I am right and the date is to be announced at Report stage, that means that the White Paper is not going to be published until towards the end of July at the earliest. Then this House and the other place will have to sit a week later, and perhaps into August, to debate both White Papers, because it is not just the Scottish one but the Welsh White Paper as well.
When that is finished we then have August. I have already explained about that and I am not going over it again. We then go from August into September. It is quite important. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, the White Papers on devolution for Scotland and Wales are not on the lists of summer reading. I suspect that they may not be currently on the lists, but they will have to be for those people who are interested and indeed all of those who will be asked to vote.
I accept that 2nd October would take us well beyond six weeks. I am trying to avoid the Government coming to Report stage and giving the date of the referendum, which is what I understand they intend to do at that stage, and giving us only four to five weeks—it may be less—in order to digest the White Papers. That is essentially why I have tabled this amendment. It is time we had some kind of timetable about this matter.
My amendment simply means that if we have to debate in the first week of August, then the Government can have their referendum, if my diary count is right, about 11th September. If we cannot have the debate until the second week of August, then we can have the referendum on 18th September. I certainly do not want a debate in the second week of August and the referendum on 4th September. That would be quite wrong and there is no need for that kind of speed. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me with the timings of the referendum and the White Paper and will be able reassure me. I will be happy with his assurance that the Scottish people will have at least six weeks between the debate and the referendum to consider these issues. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: For a matter of such importance as a referendum on a serious constitutional change, six weeks seems to me to be a very short time for the voters to consider what they are voting on. That is the absolute minimum of time. I would have preferred the people to have had three months. What is all the hurry about? The Government have been elected for five years. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the

185
Opposition he talked himself into a corner by promising the Scots a devolved parliament within the first year of government. Now he is in a corner and cannot get out of it without losing face. But I am very sorry. This is far too important a matter to be rushed through in a hurry like this. As I say, the Government have five years to implement their manifesto commitments. What on earth is all the rush about?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Palmer: I too would like to echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Saltoun. One only has to think back and to look at the experience of the last government, who made the crushing mistake with the poll tax by introducing it into Scotland as an experiment, then introducing it into England and Wales and then abandoning the whole thing. I urge the Government most strongly just to reflect on the previous government's mistakes and not rush things.
Lord Hughes: At a general election, it is usual that the election is held three, or not more than four, weeks after the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament. The people of the country have to consider not just one issue, as is the position with this referendum, but a whole variety of things which a government may do.
This year, the previous Prime Minister departed from the normal procedure and we had an election campaign which ran for six weeks. By the end of that time, a great part of the population of the country was bored stiff and most people were not listening to the election broadcasts which then took place. Six weeks for a general election proved to be too long, and I am quite sure it will be too long in relation to this referendum.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: If I might intervene, I think this is a rather more important matter even than a general election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he think that his argument would apply to a general election held on, for example, 4th September with a campaign in August?
Earl Russell: This amendment has a certain plausibility about it. I am sure that, if the Government can, they will do what this amendment asks. It does not therefore follow that it is appropriate to embody it in primary legislation as I learnt all the way through my first parliament and for much of my second.
That is the case made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his report on the drafting of legislation. The legislator cannot possibly foresee all details. The more detail you put into primary legislation the more repealing legislation will be needed and the more cluttered parliamentary time becomes.
I remember one particular occasion when I moved such an amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, took me to pieces like a clock and told me that it would be most improper to have any such thing in primary legislation. I replied to him that I agreed with him entirely had I ever intended to press the amendment to
186
a Division. I had moved the amendment in order to obtain an assurance, which I received; and I was happy to withdraw it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be about to tell us the same thing.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, invited me to answer a question. If there were to be a vote on 4th September and information on 15th August, he would be perfectly correct. But I can see nothing wrong if it is between 4th August and 4th September.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a very important amendment. I rather agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that, if anything, six weeks is too short. I do not believe that it is correct to compare this with a general election campaign.
We are now setting up a referendum, the answers to which will not follow party lines. It will be a cross-party issue. There are four options for the way one votes. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said earlier. a number of campaigns will be running which say different things. People must sort out not only what are the proposals but which combination of votes they wish to cast. I do not know yet how I shall vote. I doubt that I shall vote "Yes, yes", but there is the option of "No. no" or "No, yes", which are both valid ways to vote in my view. I am increasingly certain that I want to say "Yes" to the second question. That is a complicated process through which people must go. It will lead to a good deal of dissatisfaction because for half of the time people will be on holiday. In my view, this has nothing whatever to do with an attempt to frustrate the Bill or referendum. If we are to have a referendum it must be fair and clear to people what they are doing. We must be satisfied that the outcome is what the people of Scotland want.
I am sorry that the Government appear to be so determined in this matter. I do not know whether the Front Bench has been instructed not to give way on anything. I said at Second Reading that I thought that with no proper opposition in another place Ministers there would be very interested in the arguments deployed in this House. I hope that that is so. This is one of those matters on which I believe the Government should think again.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As I indicated to the Committee earlier, 19 years ago I was successful in getting the Government to accept that there should be a period of six weeks between the setting of the date for polling day and the statutory instrument that had to pass through both Houses of Parliament. That statutory instrument, which I quoted earlier today, was discussed in your Lordships' House on 5th December. Polling day was on 1st March. Therefore, because the statutory instrument already had the date of 1st March in it one was aware of the date three months beforehand.
I was then leading on the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench, having been Secretary of State for Scotland for four years some time before that. I confess that in these matters I am antediluvian. Then we did not worry about wintry conditions. In the Second Reading debate quite a number of comments were made—I did not interrupt anyone at that time because it was not

187
necessary to do so—about how difficult conditions were in Scotland in January and March. On the last occasion the campaign was held in January and February. The campaign started in January and polling day was on 1st March. My home is just beyond the Cairngorms.
Comments were made in particular by the Liberal Democrat Benches about ice and snow. That made no difference to us at all. We take ice and snow as a matter of course in northern Scotland. We were quite happy to have a longer period in order to consider the questions in the then referendum. I was successful in obtaining at least six weeks last time. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is not here, because he was the very co-operative Minister of State at the time who accepted our suggestions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will do the same today. Both come from Aberdeen. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was Lord Provost of Aberdeen when I was Secretary of State. Therefore, I know him very well. At that time the amendment was accepted. We knew that we would have more than six weeks. I must support my noble friend on this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hesitate to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He does not live in an area of ice and snow. He lives in the most favoured part of Scotland where the Gulf Stream comes pouring in. Had he represented Caithness and Sutherland he would have had a very different idea of ice and snow.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I do not live on the west coast of Scotland where the Gulf Stream permits palm trees to grow. I live by the Moray Firth just beyond the Cairngorms which in winter is probably one of the coldest areas of Scotland.
The Earl of Northesk: I infer from comments made by noble Lords opposite that the presumption against my noble friend's amendment is that six weeks of campaigning will be too long. However, as I understand it this amendment seeks a six-month interval between publication and debate of the White Papers in this House and another place and the referendums. The presumption therefore that there will be a six-week campaign is wholly erroneous. The campaign for a yes or no vote need only take three weeks irrespective of what my noble friend's amendment seeks to deliver.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I support the amendment. Amendment No. 29, which will not come up tonight but which is a similar amendment in respect of Wales, has even greater strength than this amendment because the Welsh assembly is less defined in people's minds than the proposal for a Scottish parliament. If the Government were to feel that they could not resist
188
Amendment No. 29, it would be right for them to accept this amendment or at least to give an assurance on the timetable equivalent to the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that in his part of Scotland they took ice in their stride. I always thought that they took ice in the whisky, but there we are.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Not in Scotland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As soon as I said that, I realised my error. I could feel the boomerang winging its way around and hitting me on the back of the head. I sympathise with the reasonable requirement that there should be a proper opportunity for consideration and debate. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said some weeks ago that there would be an opportunity to debate the White Papers in this place and in another place before the Recess. My noble friend Lord Sewel has repeated that assurance. I have repeated it. That is our commitment.
What my noble friend Lord Sewel said on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was:
"Hopefully by Report. on the currently envisaged timetable, the Government will inform noble Lords about proposed dates for publishing the White Papers and holding the referendums".
That is still our hope. I cannot guarantee any specific time. As soon as the dates of the White Paper and the projected dates for holding the referendums are definitively known to us, we shall notify Members of this place. I cannot go further than that tonight. It is idle to pretend that I can. There is no suggestion that either my noble friend Lord Sewel or I are under instructions to give nothing away.
We recognise the legitimate interest in having an informed debate. I am content, of course, to take into account the advice given by the noble Lord to reflect on the previous government's mistakes, but that would be a long period of reflection indeed. I repeat what has already been said: when we know the dates positively, we shall return to this place with the dates for the publication of the two White Papers, the proposed dates for the referendums, and, when the usual channels have agreed, the dates for the debates on the White Papers in this place.
Lord Gray of Contin: I had not intended to intervene at this stage, because I have followed the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to exercise discipline. I have exercised that discipline of silence for the whole of the afternoon. I have not heard a more inadequate reply to any debate than the one to which we have just listened. It is appalling. The Government have brought all this on their own heads. If the Government had done as any normal government would have done, and published their White Paper in adequate time so that it could have been studied and debated, we would not find ourselves in the situation in which we are tonight.

189
We have been accused of deviating from the point of various amendments. That is no wonder, because we just do not have the details that should be available to us from the White Paper. Now we are given vague information about the publication of the White Paper, which will arrive at a most inopportune time: the end of the parliamentary year when everyone is preparing to go away, when families are ready for holidays, when all the various bodies throughout Scotland which would wish to consider the matter carefully are facing the same problem of staff holidays, people unavailable to give opinions and everything else, and now we are told that the date of the referendum will come, presumably, and, we suspect, in September. That is a useless month for such an event. People will be on holiday and will be unable to vote. The whole exercise is a muddle. On top of that, we are faced with a situation in which the Bill was treated with contempt in another place. It was rushed through as though there was some desperate urgency about it. In this House, if we give it the due care and attention that is justified we shall be accused of time wasting. No doubt that would be used at some future time as ammunition to fire at us for trying to get at the Government. In fact, the Government should be applauding the fact that this Chamber is prepared to give the Bill consideration instead of suggesting that time wasting and other exercises have been taking place.
I hope that in future amendments which are tabled and carefully considered in this Chamber will be appreciated by the other side who will realise that we are only doing the duty expected of us. I hope that we can hear something more constructive from the Government. I have sympathy with the Ministers on the Front Bench. They are having to carry the can for what was not done by their counterparts in another place. The Bill needs careful scrutiny in this House.
Perhaps some of the arguments that have been put forward are more suited to the Bill which will follow. My colleagues and others on this side of the Committee may have deviated slightly from the purpose of the Bill because the information is not available and the White Paper has not been produced. I hope that the Government will take a little heart from the fact that they can be constructive by listening to what we have to say.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One always wants to be constructive in listening to what anyone says. The noble Lord said that another place had treated these matters with contempt. Having studied the number of amendments and their content, I am obliged to agree. It was also said by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that a vague date was being put forward. I have been as specific as I can, which is to reiterate the assurance given weeks ago by the Lord Privy Seal that there would he an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the White Paper before the Summer Recess. I am not intending to try to deceive anyone in your Lordships' House. I am giving your Lordships the information at my disposal, which I believe to be my duty.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may make a further comment. I would not wish the noble Lord to believe
190
that I had suggested he was trying to deceive the House in any way. That certainly was not my intention. I was sympathising with him in the hopeless task he had been given by his colleagues in another place. However, I believe that as regards this House the details must not be overlooked. Every detail of this Bill must be carefully examined because the legislation was not carefully examined elsewhere. It is simply not good enough for the noble Lord to criticise amendments which were tabled. Many of them were not considered, so there was no question of their being answered.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Gray, sits down, he said one thing which surprised me greatly. He said that normal governments allow adequate time. Can he tell me when was the last normal government?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Accusations of time wasting have been bandied about. It may interest the House to know that out of 90 amendments on the Marshalled List we are in the process of discussing the 43rd. In view of the fact that this is the first day of three, we are not doing too badly.
Lord Sewel: Before the noble Lady sits down, perhaps I may make it clear that neither I nor my noble friends have made any accusation about time-wasting in the Chamber this evening.
Lord Palmer: Further to my earlier comments, could Her Majesty's Government please tell us what is the desperate urgency about rushing all this legislation through before the Summer Recess? We do not even yet know when the Summer Recess is due to take place. Bearing in mind that many of us live in Scotland and the Scottish schools go back in the middle of August, some Members of Parliament, and certainly some Members of this House, will have no holidays with their children whatsoever.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not think I was going to get a debate like this when I introduced my modest amendment; nor indeed did I think that I was going to get quite the audience I have got. I have not seen so many Government Ministers in the Chamber since we started and I am delighted to see that they have arrived at this time of night. I am hugely tempted to spend an hour or two reminding them—because they do not need a lesson—of how able they were in Opposition. They were able enough in Opposition to keep me at the Dispatch Box for many hours. However, perhaps the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is not here reduces the temptation. It was she and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who taught me how to deal with opposition.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Gray. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have considered replies of the shortness we have had today from government ministers pretty inadequate if I had attempted to use them in all the various pieces of legislation I took through your Lordships' House. However, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for clarifying one point.

191
As I said, a noble friend and I were disputing what his noble friend Lord Sewel had actually said. I am now clear that we shall not actually receive the White Paper by Report stage. When we reach Report stage we shall be given the date of the White Paper and the date of the referendum. That is what I had thought but I was beginning to doubt it, and indeed one of my noble friends suggested otherwise.
That means, I suspect, that the media are quite wrong when they suggest that we shall have the referendum on 4th September and it means, although I did not see it myself, that the Welsh Secretary made a slip of the tongue on television on Sunday when he said that we would see the White Paper in a fortnight. I now accept what has been said. That is fine as far as it goes, but the Minister did not address my amendment. The noble Earl rightly pointed out to me that this was a typical probing amendment of the kind that he used against me on many occasions just to get an assurance from the Minister, and then he would withdraw such an amendment. That was entirely my intention: that I would get some assurances from the Minister about the time and then I would withdraw the amendment, having had those assurances on the record.
Actually the amendment was not even addressed. The question of how much time there might be between the referendum being published and debated and the date of the referendum itself was not addressed. Perhaps I might invite either of the Ministers to give us some kind of assurance that no fewer than six weeks will elapse between this House and the other place debating the
192
White Paper and the date of the referendum itself. Clearly I am not going to get any such assurance. I imagine that Members of the other place, especially Scottish Members, might not be too pleased to know that they are likely to be held here well into August to debate this White Paper, and miss out on the school holidays. I remember them being very annoyed in the early 1980s when I was a humble Back-Bencher in the other place and the Government of which I was a member kept us a little into August—not far into August—and we were all annoyed about that—not just the members of the Labour Party. We tried to persuade the Government, with some success, that they should not repeat that offence. I fear that the offence is going to be repeated very considerably this year.
Clearly I am not going to get answers to my questions. Neither of the noble Ministers are prepared to give me any kind of assurances or even to address the question of the interval between the two events. I may come back to this later. In the meantime, with a good deal of annoyance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.