Lords Sitting of 21 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 Liverpool.
Lord Haden-Guest—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale—Took the Oath.

Baltic States: Status
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the three Baltic states are former Soviet Union states as is now claimed by the Russian Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom Government never recognised de jure the annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, although de facto they were a part of the Soviet Union from 1940 until 1991. We welcomed the restoration of the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1991 and considered them to be sovereign European states.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her unambivalent and unambiguous reply. It will give great comfort to all 5 million people living in the Baltic states, whatever their ethnic origin. During the interim period before the states are brought into the Western institutions, will Her Majesty's Government use their influence with their NATO allies to see in what way they can enhance the security of the states? I ask Her Majesty's Government not to leave the United States of America to take the lead in this most important task.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will certainly use what influence they have to ensure the security of the Baltic states. As the noble Earl knows, we already spend a great deal of money on the security of the Baltic states. At the Madrid Summit, NATO repeated its pledge that the door will remain open to further enlargement. Article 10 of the Washington Treaty states that the allies may, by unanimous agreement, decide to invite to join NATO any European country in a position to further NATO's principles and contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what help is being given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and what additional help will the Minister consider giving to the three Baltic states to build up their civil society, without which they will be prey to many of the people still interested in their future who now reside in Russia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Baltic states are increasingly important partners to the United Kingdom both politically and commercially. Indeed, in 1996 United Kingdom exports to the Baltic states were £218 million—an increase of 83 per cent. on the previous year. Imports, at £606 million, rose by 33 per cent. on the previous year. In addition, the know-how fund has played an important role in the transition of the Baltic states and £7.3 million has been spent since the restoration of independence. The UK share of the EU PHARE spending is 16 per cent., £100 million being spent in 1995. The PHARE spending is, of course, the EU technical assistance programme.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the three states, as they obtain independence, are absorbed into NATO and NATO arms are stored there, will it not be the case that increasingly the view will be held in Russia that that is a threat and not an act of friendship?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is no question of Russia having a veto over the rights of the Baltic states, or any other European country, to join NATO. The right of states to choose the means to ensure their own security was acknowledged in the NATO Russian Founding Act.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is it correct that people of Russian origin living in the Baltic states are deprived of the ability to stand for election and to vote in elections in those countries? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all people living in those states are accorded the human right of standing for election and voting in elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are indeed concerned that all minorities should enjoy full civic rights. But we welcome the progress made by Estonia in addressing the concerns of the Russian minorities. The OSCE and Council of Europe have confirmed that the allegations that were made in some parts of Russia of massive human rights abuses are unfounded. We look forward to further progress on that issue. The OSCE mission in Estonia and the OSCE High Commissioner for Minorities is doing very valuable work in monitoring the treatment of the minorities in Estonia. Her Majesty's Government wish that valuable work to continue.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, what is the Government's reaction to the statement by Mr. Chernomyrdin last week that Russia wishes to join the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that there are a number of countries which have said that they wish to join the European Union. It is interesting if they embrace the Russian Government also. I am sure that in due course the United Kingdom Government will give their view on that matter.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, will the Government confirm that they support the Baltic battalion for peace-keeping purposes and will they confirm their commitment to that within the Strategic Defence Review?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am able to confirm the Government's commitment to the BaltBat arrangements.

BBC World Service
2.44 p.m.
Lord Chalfontasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements being made by the BBC for the future of the World Service.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are monitoring the situation closely. As I believe the noble Lord is aware, the joint FCO-BBC World Service working group will reconvene in the autumn of this year to determine whether the measures it agreed last year to ensure the continued protection of World Service interests and the maintenance of its special character, style and ethos are functioning satisfactorily.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she give an assurance that the views of a very distinguished media journalist and three former managing directors of the World Service which have recently appeared in the press will be taken fully into account when the working party prepares its report? In that context, what arrangements are being made to ensure that the grant-in-aid which the Foreign Office gives to the World Service is kept separate from the BBC's revenue through licence fees so that there is no danger or even possibility of cross-financing?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think we are all aware of some of the criticisms and worries that have arisen. I assure the noble Lord that all strands of argument about the World Service are being taken into account. As I said in my original Answer, we shall be looking at the 20 measures in concert with the committee of experts which is to reconvene in the autumn—I expect that it will be in October although no date has yet been set—to review the important points raised. On the noble Lord's second question, I can assure him that as far as I am aware there is no suggestion at all of the two sources of finance being brought together.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it does seem rather odd that the three previous managing directors, who did so much to establish the success of the World Service, should have their opinions disregarded. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is a widespread fear, to which the director general of the BBC seems immune, that the quality of that service is in danger of being somehow swallowed up in the general digestive system of the corporation as a whole?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I am aware of the particular criticism that was made. As I believe is widely known, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not consulted in advance and was given only 24 hours' notice of the reorganisation proposals announced on 6th June last year. Following the widespread criticisms to which the noble Lord refers, the joint FCO-BBC working party was set up to meet those points. It is only since April of this year that the reorganisation has been functioning and we believe that we should leave it a little longer—until the autumn of this year—before coming to any decisions. We should remember that the BBC World Service remains the most popular such service in the world. It is pre-eminent among international broadcasters. Indeed, it is twice the size, and growing, of its nearest competitor, the Voice of America.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that being so, will my noble friend give the House an undertaking that notwithstanding any emanations which come from the director general of the BBC on this matter the Government will ensure that the service remains intact and as efficient as she described it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government wish to see the BBC World Service remain intact and listened to as widely as it is at present. Indeed, we wish to see the World Service grow and prosper. We are spending a great deal of money on it. Its audience is at a record figure of 143 million people throughout the world and, as I said, increasing.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance about the grant-in-aid mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? Will it continue at a level which enables the World Service to plan ahead adequately bearing in mind the developing nature of technology in this area?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I can give such an assurance. Of course, there are a number of different unknowns at the moment. I have referred to the review to take place later this year. The expansion in digital broadcasting must also be taken into account. But, as the House is aware, the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive spending review of all government departments. That also affects the FCO. I am sure that that will have to be taken into account in assessing the future needs of the World Service. I assure your Lordships that this Government are fully seized of the importance of the World Service and its importance to people throughout the world as the voice of this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House on the question of standards? Is there any danger that the World Service will follow Radio 4 in "dumbing down", which, I believe, is the correct technical term? Will the Government ensure that that does not happen to the

1191
World Service? The rest of the world at least needs to know that we try to maintain some standards in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I expect noble Lords throughout the House will have their own views on the "dumbing down", as my noble friend puts it, of Radio 4. The 20 measures which were agreed by the previous Secretary of State at the FCO and by the chairman of the BBC are designed to safeguard,
"the special character, style, ethos and quality of the World Service."
We shall see whether the working party believes that those features have been sustained when it reconvenes in the autumn.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there will be a recording of these exchanges in "Today in Parliament" or "Yesterday in Parliament" before Mr. Birt gets down to abolishing those programmes?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, unfortunately I am not able to dictate what is broadcast on Radio 4's "Yesterday in Parliament" programme. I sometimes wish I could. I usually find that such programmes feature what the broadcasters consider to be particularly exciting or funny exchanges in this House which do not necessarily reflect the merits of the argument. If the latter were to prevail, I am sure that we would hear a great deal about this issue tomorrow.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Baroness David: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe we have sufficient time to hear both the question of my noble friend Lady David and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. Perhaps my noble friend may go first.
Baroness David: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that Mr. Younger, who is at present in charge of the World Service, came to the Houses of Parliament last week to make himself available for questions? Indeed, a number of those who have asked questions today also put questions to Mr. Younger. I believe they received reassuring answers. I believe Mr. Younger is anxious that the funding and the freedom should continue. To judge from what my noble friend said, it seems that that will continue. Nevertheless, it would be very nice to have that reassurance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of that meeting. Indeed, there is a close day-to-day working relationship between the FCO and the staff of the World Service. We want that to continue
1192
and we want information to be readily available, not only to this House and to another place but also to the public.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason for the World Service being so respected and valued throughout the world is that it is accurate and impartial, unlike the BBC at home which is both inaccurate and partial?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the editorial policy of the BBC at home. Suffice it to say that the editorial independence of the World Service is guaranteed and will continue to be so.

Private Health Insurance
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlegeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards private health insurance.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, private medical insurance is not a matter for government policy but of individual, personal choice. As an individual representing the Government in this House, I can say that I have complete confidence in the excellent care provided by the NHS.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather short Answer. However, can she say how the first part of her answer squares with the announcements made by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health that he intends to sack chairmen and non-executive directors of trusts and health authorities who have private health insurance? Further, can the Minister say how this Labour ideology leaves the 14,000 NHS doctors who have private health insurance? Are they also to be sacked and, if not, why not?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government believe that those people in positions of responsibility for the governance of the health service should indeed put their faith in the health service, as I have done. The position of individual medical practitioners who are not employed by the health service may be different.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as a former chairman of BUPA, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she is aware—and I am sure she is—of the innumerable occasions over the years when the professionals, not the politicians, working in the NHS and the private sector have co-operated together extremely happily to the great benefit of patients in both sectors, which is an important consideration. Does the Minister agree that the Government would do well to promote similar co-operation in the future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe there has been effective co-operation between the NHS and private providers of healthcare, especially in some specialised areas such as, for example, long-term mental health problems. I believe that nothing I have said detracts from that.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems with private health insurance is that the companies concerned frequently cherry pick in that they actually insure those things which are most profitable for them? Secondly, will my noble friend also agree that such companies often renege on their agreements in advertising; for example, in one case BUPA is particularly misleading in suggesting that people can see the doctor of their choice when that is not actually true because it depends on the quality of the insurance?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for drawing those problems to the attention of your Lordships. There have been particular concerns about elderly people and their problems with long-term medical conditions which, as my noble friend said, are sometimes not covered under their health insurance. They are, therefore, most worried when they find themselves afflicted with a long-term condition which is not adequately covered.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although the Government are ideologically opposed to private health insurance, will the Minister agree that the people who take up private health insurance are relieving the responsibility on the NHS and thereby helping resources? Would it be possible for the Minister to make an estimate of how much additional funding would be required for the NHS if private health insurance were abolished? Further, can she say how much more would that mean in terms of income tax or, indeed, in terms of other financial measures such as, for example, the abolition of dividends on pension funds?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may, first, correct what she said at the beginning of her supplementary question; namely, that the Government are ideologically opposed to private medical insurance. As I said in my original Answer, we regard this as a matter of individual, personal choice. As to the calculation about what may or may not be the possible implications for the NHS, some rather alarming stories have been spread over the past few weeks about the impact on the NHS of, for example, removing tax relief. Of course, any additional expenditure would be dwarfed by the £1.2 billion extra given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that private healthcare has always been permissible even within the NHS? However, the fact is that the NHS is
1194
cast in the noblest mode of any party measure that has come before our Parliament; and, furthermore, our NHS is the envy of the world.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very happy to endorse my noble friend's views and I accept exactly what he said.

AIDS Survivors: Treatments
2.58 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the uncertainty about the nature of the treatment regimes followed by long-term HIV/AIDS survivors, and the importance of this information, they will fund a long-term study.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Medical Research Council is the main sponsor of medical research in the UK and would obviously consider proposals on their scientific merits in competition with other applications. However, the MRC has already funded research on people who, although they are HIV positive, have not, over a period of some years, gone on to develop AIDS. That research looked at lifestyle and behavioural factors. The noble Earl may be interested to know that it also included the use of complementary therapies, in addition to detailed laboratory studies. I understand that the published results of that research should be available within the next six months.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, perhaps I may also thank her for her detailed response to my letter, following my earlier Question of 19th June, which has only just arrived and which I have not had time to digest. Will the noble Baroness accept that I am not here seeking simply to bang a complementary medicine drum in attempting to follow up information which seems to suggest that patients survive by rejecting conventional treatment and embracing a wide range of alternatives?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that that is the noble Earl's view, based on a number of learned papers which he was kind enough to send to me. The Department of Health and the Medical Research Council have no evidence of long-term survival among people who have deliberately avoided conventional therapies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has any research been carried out into the possible increase in HIV and AIDS among practising male homosexuals if the age of homosexual consent is reduced to 16—a step which the Government apparently support?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that has certainly not been the subject of research. As my noble friend will know, there has been an increase in

1195
HIV positive status among young homosexual men. It is a matter for speculation what change would occur if there were a change in the law.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain why it is proposed that people should be sodomised at the age of 16 which will obviously greatly increase the number of people with AIDS? What is the sense in that policy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can respond only as I did to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Any relationship between a change in the law on homosexual consent and potential HIV infection is at this moment simply a matter of speculation.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that drug-based approaches have got almost nowhere in the past 10 years, and that the new protease inhibitors have not yet shown any actual survival benefit? In the light of that, are we not at risk of repeating earlier errors with AZT, as shown by the recent Concorde trial? I refer the Minister to col. 628 of the Official Report of 9th July when I asked a similar question about HIV and AIDS. I asked the Minister to write to me. I hope that I shall receive an answer in due course.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise. I thought I had given the information to the noble Earl. I shall of course pursue that matter with the Department of Health. I believe that the noble Earl is somewhat incorrect in his rather pessimistic analysis of what has happened in respect of these therapies. My understanding is that data from clinical trials such as the multinational Delta trial show a relative reduction of about 30 per cent. when the combination therapies are used. Of course we are still looking at the early data on the combination therapies using three different drugs, the so-called "cocktail" drugs, which have been in use in this country only for some 18 months to two years. At the moment the results are rather optimistic.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it the case that no government in recorded history have ever had a complete statistical base of the number of either heterosexual or homosexual sexual acts, and that therefore the statistical base for the research requested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, does not exist?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as always, I defer to the noble Earl in any matter of historical comparisons.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, your Lordships will have seen in the press this afternoon the assessment that each case of AIDS in London costs £10,000 and that many foreigners come here to receive treatment at our expense whereas complementary medical treatment has negligible costs in many cases. We greatly look forward to the review of the Medical Research Council. If the MRC does not persist in its research in this field will
1196
the department consider funding research directly itself? I understand that the directly funded research budget is something of the order of £30 million.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. It would be sensible for us to await the outcome of the research from the Medical Research Council which, as I said in answer to the original Question, should be within a matter of months. As regards overseas visitors being treated in London, I am glad to say for the record—because I know that there has been press speculation on this matter—that trusts should charge overseas visitors for their treatment. That charge can either be made against the individual concerned or, in the case of those countries which have a reciprocal agreement with the UK, with the bodies specified in that reciprocal agreement.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that patients with AIDS and tuberculosis are becoming resistant to antibiotics? How much research is being done into this dangerous, worldwide condition?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly what is being done on a worldwide basis to look into the relationship between TB and HIV infection. I am aware that it is a matter of concern to clinicians in this country. That may well be a sensible suggestion as regards future research.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on reform of the National Lottery.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Haskel.)
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome this Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the Opposition. As my noble friend said at Second Reading, we would have introduced the Bill had we won the general election. We wish it well.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be allowed to take part in the debate at this stage. This is a splendid Bill. We are grateful to the

1197
Government for accepting my amendment and others and for tabling one themselves. I hope that the Bill is well received in the other place.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind words. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this Bill for their helpful contributions. It will lead to a more efficient use and better management of the radio spectrum.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Referendum in Scotland]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24 and 27. I gave an undertaking at Committee stage on 3rd July that the Government would bring forward suitable amendments on Report to incorporate the material from the draft Orders in Council into the Bill. I am pleased to present these amendments to the House. In the interests of clarity we shall debate the new schedule and the amendments to it later. The amendments before us now pave the way for the new schedule incorporating the Orders in Council. This is the first stage of a two-stage process.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made a convincing argument that we should not detain your Lordships' House and another place into August simply to debate the draft Orders in Council. We were content to take that step in the interests of everyone. However, I should point out that our original approach was perfectly acceptable technically and procedurally. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the detailed conduct of the referendums could be dealt with perfectly well by Order in Council. However, in the interests of time we bring forward these amendments today.
It may be of assistance if I outline the purpose of our amendments. Amendment No. 1 allows the Secretary of State to specify the date of the referendum by order. This replaces the procedure whereby the date is specified in the Order in Council. Amendment No. 13 requires the order to be made by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 8 replaces the provision of Clause 3(2), which allowed the Orders in Council to specify a cut-off date for alterations to the register of electors. The cut-off date is to be 10 days before the date of the referendum.
Amendment No. 10 requires the counting officer to conduct the count in accordance with part of the new schedule, in addition to any direction issued by the chief counting officer. This covers arrangements for appointment of observers, attendance at the count and certification of the result.
Amendments Nos. 14, 19, 21 and 24 have similar effect for Wales. We will come to the main amendment, the new schedule, later. For the moment, I commend these amendments as an essential preparatory step. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment, and for taking on board the suggestions I made at Committee stage. Perhaps that negates some of the more hysterical comments we have heard about the Upper House having no business to examine legislation and make its views known. We made our views known at Committee stage. The Government accepted them, and here we are with the results. I am glad that it was a convincing argument. The noble Lord was kind enough not to point out that it was a brief argument and to draw the conclusion that the shorter the argument the more chance I have of success. I am not entirely convinced. I believe that my chance of success was hugely enhanced by the fact that the proposal I made meant that this House and another place would not have to sit until 8th August and could rise at the end of next week.
Perhaps I may ask a few questions of the Minister. My first point relates to the statutory instrument under which the Secretary of State makes the order. I presume that it is by negative procedure; otherwise the device that I have chosen so that we shall not sit into August would not work. We would have to sit in order to go through the affirmative procedure. That was the problem with the route which the Government had originally set out.
The second point is more serious in many ways. I refer to Amendments Nos. 8 and 19. When I put down the amendment to the Bill at Committee stage, I chose a rather longer time period than 11 days. I decided to make the beginning of August the cut-off point. I did so because the constituency in which I live in Glasgow has had some controversy over the question of late additions to the register during the election held on 1st May. As I understand it, those controversial points have not yet been resolved. I do not wish to go into the detail because the matter is the subject of police inquiries. No doubt a report will go, if it has not already gone, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who I see sitting on the Government Bench. However, I believe that a little longer is needed for the authorities to make sure that the corrections and additions to the register are justified.
The issue may well go wider than just the referendum. Parliament may well have to consider the issue after we hear the results of the investigations at Govan. My recollection is that the procedure whereby people can register long after 10th October is of fairly recent date. The period for checking the register was towards the end of a year. Those dates are long gone. As I understand it, one can register in any month of the year if one were a

1199
qualifying elector on 10th October previously. That is what caused the difficulty in the constituency of Glasgow Govan. I hope that the Minister is right in choosing 11 days ending with the date of the referendum and that we do not have controversy about additions to the register during the month of August, with people claiming that they were in residence on 10th October last.
I invite the noble Lord to tell me whether there are any checks. I fear that he will tell me that there are none. Therefore, perhaps he will agree with me that it is a matter to which we should return in greater detail at a future date when we examine the Representation of the People Act.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord. I think that I can give him the assurance that the order will be subject to the negative procedure. Therefore I believe that we can all go away safely.
I have some sympathy with the general point made about the 11 days. However, I heard arguments from the Benches opposite at an earlier stage that people should be allowed to register up until the last moment. I believe that that would have created havoc as regards proper regulation of the referendum.
On all the points covered by the amendments—they will incorporate the orders into the Bill—we have very much leant on the advice that we received from the electoral officers. We have to rest on their judgment and advice at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert (", but not less than eight weeks after publication of the White Paper detailing the Government's proposals,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 3. Both amendments deal with the question which exercised the Committee about the dates of the White Paper and the referendum. At Committee stage, noble Lords will remember that the dates were treated as somewhat of a state secret by the party opposite. We made it clear at Committee stage that we expected those dates to be made available before the Bill completed its parliamentary stages. I am glad to see that in at least one regard the Government have heeded what we said at Committee stage, and that we now know the two dates.
It would have been perhaps more mannerly to your Lordships' House if the Government had announced these matters today in response to the two amendments. Instead the announcements were made in answer to two Parliamentary Questions last week. I believe that the Government could have announced them today as a way of showing that they appreciated the debates at Committee stage and of indicating that it is a two-Chamber Parliament and not simply a one-chamber Parliament.
It is welcome that we have something close to eight weeks as regards publication of the White Paper. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, envisaged six weeks, give or take a week one way or the other. I was grateful for that assurance. As I understand it, seven weeks will be allowed now between publication of the White Paper and the Scottish referendum. There will be eight weeks between the publication of the Welsh White Paper and the Welsh referendum. That is a matter to which I shall return in a few moments.
The purpose of the two amendments today would have been to tease out the dates from the Government. If they had not allowed a reasonable time, I would have invited noble Lords to indicate their displeasure at the whole matter being rushed. I am still not convinced that the time available is sufficient. It might be sufficient at any other time of the year, in the later autumn or the spring. But I believe that when four of the seven weeks are in August, the period is less than satisfactory.
Many matters will have to be discussed during the seven weeks of the referendum campaign. Indeed, some matters are still coming to the surface. Last week we heard the amazing revelation that—after 18 years—the Labour Party thought that the Royal High School room set aside for the assembly of parliament was unsuitable. So goodness knows what else will emerge during the referendum campaign about which we shall have to think long and hard.
For example, has a deal been done between the Scottish National Party and the Government on the powers of the parliament, so that it will be able to vote Scotland into independence without coming to the Westminster Parliament? Press reports state that the Government have done that deal in order to have the support of the Scottish National Party for the referendum campaign.
Some noble Lords will remember that I suggested in Committee that the support of the Scottish Nationalists in the referendum campaign was very much a two-edged sword for the Government. On the assumption that they won, I said I could assure the Government that the Scottish National Party would claim that they had won only because the majority of the "Yes, yes" votes cast were actually cast for independence. How that could be a stable basis for proceeding with devolution, I failed to see.
However, the Government are clearly very concerned about the turnout and the result of the referendum—to such an extent that they want to try to ensure that the Scottish National Party are on board and are campaigning "Yes, yes" to devolution despite the fact that they believe in devolution no more than I do but actually believe in separatism just as firmly as I believe in the continued existence of the Union with one Parliament.
It is amazing that, at this late stage, the Government appear to be prepared to include in their White Paper (if the reports are true) the possibility that the Scottish parliament will be able to decide, by itself, without coming to Westminster, that Scotland can set itself up as an independent country. The proposal is that there is no so-called glass ceiling on the powers of the

1201
Scottish parliament. If I were a member of the Scottish National Party, I should certainly be celebrating today if the Government have given a secret undertaking to the SNP that they will allow powers to be given to the Scottish parliament which, some time in the future, will allow that parliament, without any reference to Westminster, to vote itself an independent parliament. I do not see in any way how that could be considered to be strengthening the Union.
All those matters will have to be discussed. Many people are on holiday in August—the Glasgow Fair started this weekend. But, frankly, those sorts of holidays have long since passed into history and holidays are spread over a much wider period. Anybody who was in Glasgow this morning would have seen that the city was a good deal busier than it would have been 20 or 30 years ago, when almost everybody went on holiday in the same fortnight. I know of no one in Glasgow who is actually on holiday this fortnight. A few are on holiday today; a few were on holiday on Friday at Troon; but I do not know anybody who has gone away during "fair fortnight". That has passed out of people's normal practice; people take staggered holidays. Anyone who goes to Glasgow airport over the next four weeks will see that holiday flights out and in are just as busy as they are this weekend and as they were last weekend. So it is a holiday period in Scotland. I have lived there all my life and I know. The schools are on holiday until the middle of August, and the private schools for slightly longer. All those who are not tied to school holidays will tend to take their holidays after the schools return, for reasons which I am sure the House appreciates.
I simply do not believe that the proposed period of time is long enough. It is better than I feared it would be when I thought that the referendum would be held on 4th September and that we should not see the White Paper until the end of July or in August. So we have made some slight progress in this place in regard to the length of time.
Perhaps the most significant part of the answers last week was that, instead of saying as they ought to have done that the Scottish and Welsh referendums would be held on 11th September, the Government announced that the Welsh referendum would be held on 18th September, despite the fact that the Bill as it now stands has the referendums on the same day.
I do not normally get into a state of righteous indignation. However, to say, before we had reached Report or Third Reading, that the Government will overturn the decision of this House is disgraceful.
Before the Liberal Democrats start smiling weakly at me and the Benches opposite start jeering, perhaps I ought to remind the House of what happened in this place on 30th July 1980 in similar circumstances. Your Lordships decided an amendment to the Housing Bill by 109 votes to 74 (a larger majority than for the amendment two weeks ago in Committee reducing the two-day referendum to one day). An announcement was made in the House of Commons that the Government of the day intended to overturn
1202
the decision of this House even before the Report stage. The indignation started from no less a person than Lady Birk, who was an esteemed Member of this place and of the party opposite. Asking that the House be adjourned during pleasure, just after three o'clock in the afternoon, she said about the Bill and the decision made:
"The Bill has not yet been passed, and yet we have this behaviour on the part of the Government in another place which is an absolute insult to this House".
She went on to say:
"But how are we, as a House, as one of the legislative Chambers of this country, to be able to proceed when we are treated in this way?".—[Col. 8791
Lord Byers, Leader of the Liberals at that time, said:
"all quarters of the House will regard this as a Parliamentary outrage of the first order".
Lord Shinwell, then still in fine form, said in the course of his intervention:
"It is all very well lambasting and criticising us [the House of Lords], running us down and saying nasty things about us, and it is all right for some sections of the press and media to supplement those opinions of us, but we are an independent institution?' Are we or are we not?".—[Official Report, 30/7/80: cols. 879–82.]
That is a question that we could easily ask today. Lord Shinwell went a little further than I would have gone and talked about abolishing the other place! My noble friend, the then Leader, Lord Soames, had some difficulty in resisting the onslaught of the then Opposition and their friends on the Liberal Benches. The issue was put to a vote; namely, that the Sitting should be suspended. Indeed, your Lordships voted for that. The House was adjourned during pleasure. No time limit was placed on the "pleasure"; the Lord Chancellor, on the Woolsack, said that he would return shortly, and if that did not meet with everybody's satisfaction the House could adjourn again and this time place a time on the adjournment.
That sounds a humorous exchange, but the point is this. Quite clearly, when the party opposite were in Opposition and we did this to them in 1980, they thought, and stated very bluntly, that it was an affront to this House and to Parliament. They were joined in that view by the Liberals.
I do not intend to ask that the House be adjourned during pleasure. As my noble friend the Shadow Leader said, the Government did not do that again. I do not want that. I agreed that we should make progress with the Bill, and I want to do just that. However, I want to say very firmly to the Government that they could have announced to this House today the date of the White Paper and the referendum. That would have been the right thing to do in response to the amendments we tabled in Committee and the amendments we withdrew. They should also have kept whatever decision they were going to take about the one-day versus two-day referendum until your Lordships had completed consideration of the Bill, just as their distinguished colleagues insisted in 1980 that the then government should have done with regard to a defeat on the Housing Bill.
I do not think it is a very satisfactory position. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, are put in the position of appearing to ignore your Lordships' House, because I am sure that that is not their intent. Perhaps they might say very firmly to their colleagues that this is not the way to achieve good relations in your Lordships' House; that this is not the way to proceed with good government in a two-Chamber Parliament; and that in future the Government should resist the temptation to jump the gun on announcements of this nature and should certainly refrain from announcing that they will overturn defeats that they have suffered in this House before the Bill has completed its passage here.
I remember that on the defeats I suffered I certainly did not indicate what would happen before the Bill returned to the other place and the matter was decided there. If I may say so, my defeats were a good deal more significant than the defeat I inflicted upon the Government three weeks ago, although one would not think so from the absolutely hysterical outburst we had from the Prime Minister in Downing Street. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it seems to me that what the Government have done in announcing the date of the Welsh referendum in the way they have is an affront to the other place as well as to your Lordships' House. How are the Government to know that their Back-Benchers will help them to have a majority on that amendment? How are they to know that those in the other place will think that the people of Wales deserve better than to have to have their referendum on the same day? Is it better than having to wait for their referendum that they will not be able to make up their minds on the same day? It seems an extraordinary thing to do.
Surely the announcement of the date should wait until the other place has decided what it wants to do. In addition, if the Bill is returned to this House, this House could decide to stand by its amendment. The Government should wait for that. The whole referendum could then be held up for more than a year. This is a very odd way to behave and, I suggest, a new example of extraordinary arrogance on the part of the Government.
I support the amendment because eight weeks seems to be the minimum time to enable people to consider this matter. I have discussed the matter with a number of people who are either on holiday now or will be going on holiday soon and they feel that the time allowed is very short. To give satisfaction to the voters in a referendum and to achieve a satisfactory result, this length of time is essential. This is a very good amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is entirely wrong when he suggests to your Lordships that we On these Benches are smiling weakly at the different dates for the two referendums; we are smiling broadly. We are
1204
smiling broadly because it is the fulfilment of an agreement made on 5th March 1997 prior to the election and very widely publicised in Wales. That agreement said that:
"Both Parties [the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party] agree that a short time should be allowed to lapse after the Scottish referendum in order to ensure the debate in Wales, with its distinctive form of devolution, is not overshadowed by the process in Scotland".
We subscribed to that agreement; we hold the Labour Party to their part of the agreement and we expect the Members of Parliament in the other place who were elected on that platform to reverse the decision taken in your Lordships' House. We say that the choice should be before the Welsh people when they are fully informed and have had the opportunity for mature consideration of all the issues which arise in this referendum.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support the amendment, although I would prefer that it went further. I would rather have a 12-week period elapse between the publication of the White Papers and the date of the referendums or referenda—I do not know what they should be called; my Latin is a little rusty.
This is a much more important matter than a general election. This referendum concerns a grave constitutional change which may well affect the future of the United Kingdom. That is more than can be said for any general election. At Committee stage the Government compared the time that would be allowed to elapse between the publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum to the length of time which must be allowed to elapse between the announcement of the date of the general election and that election taking place, which I believe is three weeks.
I have gone back to 1900 and have ascertained that no general election since then has ever taken place in the month of August and I do not think that any have taken place in the month of September. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that the earliest date of an election in the autumn was about 24th October. Why is that? It is because people are away on holiday and do not have an opportunity to read the papers describing what is on offer and to make up their minds. Why are we being pressed on this occasion to have a referendum in the middle of the month of September? What is all the hurry about? Can the Government give me a straight answer, please?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I could begin by answering the last question: it is partly because it was a manifesto commitment that we should have the referendums by the autumn.
I have to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on managing to speak at such length and with so many different flights of fancy; I had difficulty seeing that they had anything to do with the amendment. They included a great flight of speculation about the Scottish National Party and an invitation to us to go into psychoanalysis on the motivation of people who would vote "yes". It seemed to me that the noble Lord was inviting us to reject or repel voters who would

1205
vote for the "yes, yes" campaign because we might not approve of their motivation. That is a novel way of running any kind of election or referendum.
A lot has been said about why the Government did not wait until today to announce dates for the White Papers. I understood the Benches opposite to have been demanding on previous occasions that the Government should announce the dates as soon as possible—like the day before they were speaking. Then, when the dates are announced, people say that the Government should have waited until this afternoon to announce them. I do not see the logic of that.
I quite accept from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that the old days of the industrial fortnights in Scotland, when the whole of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen closed down, may have gone. But there is still a preponderance of Scottish holiday-taking earlier than in England because of the school holidays as well as the light nights and so on. It means that the balance in Scotland is more toward July, with life getting back to normal when the schools go back in August.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand that everything has been changed and everyone staggers their holiday and at the same time seem to imply that the whole of Scotland is on holiday for all of August. That is not the Scotland I know.
So, if everyone is not on holiday for the whole of that time, it is quite possible to have a campaign when a fair proportion of the people are there for most of August. I do believe that we should get back to basics, if I dare use those words. By that, I mean that we should focus on the amendments. I understand that there will be a period of eight weeks in Wales and seven weeks in Scotland between the White Papers and the referendums. The amendment mentions eight weeks. The only difference is one week in Scotland. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about and why the amendment was moved in the first place.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I support the amendment. Eight weeks is an absolute minimum when such an important constitutional issue is to be considered, especially during the holiday time.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the Opposition well might like to take into account the fact that, since polls have been taken on the attitude of the Welsh people, the numbers have been doubling. The latest poll conducted over the weekend showed that the ratio was two to one in favour of the assembly proposals. If the period extends for 10 weeks, we might wipe out the opposition, as we did in the election.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I am a Glaswegian and I am on holiday during the fair holiday at this very moment; that is, if one can describe being in your Lordships' House as being on holiday.
Let me return to the point about timing. The true reason and explanation of why the Government will not give a decent interval between the White Paper and the
1206
vote must be perfectly plain. Despite what we have just heard about the opinion polls being apparently two-to-one, yes-to-no, at the moment, they were, I remind your Lordships, two-to-one, yes-to-no, at the beginning of the referendum campaign in 1979.
The Government have learned their lesson from that campaign, which effectively lasted for three months. They noted that the more the Scots saw of devolution, the less they liked it. The "yes" vote shrank and the "no" vote increased inexorably in the opinion polls as the campaign went on until it was virtually a dead heat on the day. So the reason why a truncated campaign period is being foisted upon us is only too obvious.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, making a fascinating series of Second Reading speeches on each of the amendments that he puts before us. We have had a re-run of one of the glittering Second Reading speeches that he made during Committee stage.
I understand that the argument is that it is entirely wrong for a government to indicate immediately that they do not propose to accept an amendment carried in the House of Lords. I was a little surprised to hear that argument. Those of us who had the pleasure of dealing with Home Office Bills when Mr. Michael Howard was Home Secretary became used to being told within 30 minutes that the Government would in no circumstances whatsoever accept the amendment. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he might take an interest in the attitude of some of his Home Office colleagues in the late administration.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that we never pre-empted the outcome of what the other place would do in any vote? As the Minister responsible, I may have indicated that we would invite the other place to consider overturning a measure but no public statements were made which implied or pre-empted the outcome of a vote in the other place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the deputy Government Chief Whip and I spent many happy hours debating issues with the noble Baroness. I believe that both of us could recall with the greatest clarity what was said on Mr. Howard's behalf every time that he lost a vote in this Chamber. He lost quite a substantial number of votes in this House, I am glad to say. But I hope that the House will now move on a little more briskly.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There is no order involved. I shall gladly give way in a moment. I always do. I simply say that it would be a good idea if we moved rather more rapidly through the amendments; all the more so because the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, last week expressed his concern about the fact that we appear to have an overloaded legislative

1207
programme. One of the reasons why we are proceeding so slowly on this Bill, which has precisely six clauses, is the never-ending series of Second Reading speeches to which we are subjected. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wishes to intervene.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and sorry that I even presumed to interrupt him in full flight. But I could not help wondering whether the noble Lord felt that the defeats that he rightly recalled that he and those whom he and his party adulate so greatly on the other side—the present Government Front Benches—inflicted were any more valid than the defeats which occasionally have been inflicted on the present Government since the general election.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the difference between the defeats in the lifetime of the previous government and those in the very brief lifetime of this Government is, as noble Lords know, that the Conservative Party in this House has three times more representatives than the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties put together. Therefore, when they were defeated in this House, it demonstrated that they could not even obtain the support of their own colleagues.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have sat through the usual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which was a wide-ranging, fascinating, colourful and predominantly irrelevant speech—perhaps more detached from relevancy than it was from reality, judging from parts of his speech, which I understand he obtained from a certain newspaper circulating in Scotland.
Let us look at what the amendment refers to rather than at cooked-up deals that are supposed to have been going on somewhere hither or thither. The amendment concerns the date of the referendum. Amendment No. 2 is intended to ensure that there are at least eight weeks between publication of the White Papers, which will be debated in both Houses, and the referendums in Scotland and Wales. As we heard, the purpose is to provide sufficient time for the people in Scotland and Wales adequately to examine the proposals contained in the White Paper before being asked to vote on them. Amendment No. 3 would prevent the referendums being held earlier than 18th September 1997.
We have already announced that we intend to publish the White Paper on the Scottish Parliament on Thursday of this week. We have also announced our intention to hold the Scottish referendum on 11th September. That provides a gap of seven weeks between publication of the White Paper and the referendum.
Is it seriously being argued by noble Lords opposite that the whole basis of democratic decision-making will come tumbling down because we have decided on seven weeks rather than eight weeks? Is it being suggested that somehow the people of Scotland can reach a mature, considered decision in a period of eight weeks but cannot make any reasonable, informed decision on the basis of seven weeks' consideration? That is absolute
1208
rot What we have seen today is pure opportunistic oppositionalism for the sake of it. It is nothing more and nothing less.
In Committee noble Lords opposite suggested a gap of six weeks. That is what they were arguing for. Moving the specific amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said,
"This amendment merely seeks to ensure that there will he adequate time, and that sufficient detail will be contained to enable the electorate to take an informed decision".—[Official Report, 3/7/97; col. 391.]
The noble Lord was arguing for six weeks. We listened to him; we heard him; we have given the matter consideration. We are saying seven weeks. Of course, noble Lords opposite are upping the ante to eight weeks. How long does this dutch auction in reverse go on for?
I should also say that we intend to publish the White Paper for Wales tomorrow—Tuesday, 22nd July—and to hold the referendum on 18th September. That will give eight weeks between publication and the referendum. Your Lordships will also note that what I said confirms the Government's intention to seek to overturn in another place the amendment passed in this House requiring the referendums to be held on the same day.
We have had a lot of huff and puff, a lot of bluster about the way the Government announced their intention. We have been accused of pre-empting the decision of Parliament—something that Mr. Howard never did. I must have been listening to a completely different radio programme. Let us go back and see what words have been used to date. The authoritative words on the issue are contained in the Answer given by the Government to the Question of my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. He asked Her Majesty's Government, on 17th July, when they expected to announce the date of the referendum to establish a Welsh assembly. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn replied. The accusation is pre-empting; that is what we are accused of. My noble friend said:
"Subject to the approval of a Motion in another place, to disagree with the amendment on dates of referendums inserted into the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in this House, the agreement of this House and subject to Royal Assent, the referendum in Wales will he held on 18 September 1997".—[Official Report, 17/7/97: WA130.]
The words "subject to" are used so many times in that sentence that it is preposterous to say that we are pre-empting the decision of this House or the other place. We are not. We are going forward quite properly.
The point was made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that never could she remember an election being held in August or September. I hesitate to raise the historic point, but if my memory serves me correctly the 1945 election was held in July. In Scotland that was a much greater holiday month, and it still is. The 1945 election was a decisive victory; the referendum will be a decisive victory.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it seems that I am not alone in making a Second Reading speech. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was making a good job of one towards the end. I am grateful to all noble Lords

1209
who have spoken. I am always amazed how many people can be drawn to the surface, especially from the Liberal Democrat Benches, when I cast my fly. Would that salmon were so obliging during August or any other month for that matter.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, graced us with a Second Reading speech. He suggested we get on with it. I suggest to him that for the rest of the afternoon he goes to the Library and studies some of the Committee and Report stages of Bills that I debated from the Dispatch Box and asks himself the question whether Members then sitting on this side of the Chamber were getting on with it. Were they introducing new material? I suggest that he studies in particular the contributions of his noble friend Lord Russell who was a frequent participator in my debates. I always attempted to respond to his questions, whether or not they were germane to the amendment. That is the way your Lordships proceed.
Perhaps we are now seeing new rules as the House has changed position. I hope that the Government do not think that and that they believe it right and well within the rules to raise issues which come up on a day-to-day basis against the amendments that are in front of us. I should have thought that this morning's press reports were perfectly legitimate matters for me to raise. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, thinks otherwise.
I was not, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, implied, arguing again the case for two days as against one day. I was simply pointing out—by quoting, for example, Lord Byers, Lady Birk and Lord Shinwell—that when the Conservative government did something similar there was a great deal of indignation from the then Labour Opposition Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am not entirely sure whether I should call them the "still opposition" Liberal Democrats". Perhaps not.
I was not arguing about one or two days and I do not disagree with the other place's right to reverse our position. I am simply saying that in 1980 the noble Lord's colleagues and the Labour Party made a great deal of fuss about a Conservative government making a statement in the other place that they intended to overturn the amendment. I was referring to that fact and the making of the statement in the other place last week. That is why I drew your Lordships' attention to the events of 1980.
I notice that no noble Lord who has sought to defend the position responded to my references to 1980. That is perhaps because your Lordships realise that the point made then was a legitimate point against government and the point I am making today is also a legitimate point against government.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the fact that we have not, by and large, had general elections in August and September, and that is right. It seems to me therefore that it would be better if the referendums were not held in holiday months. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has not lived in Scotland for some years. I can assure her that the position I portrayed is right;
1210
that is, that holidays are much more scattered. Indeed, the number of people who do not have children is increasing—either because they have all grown up or they do not yet have them—and they are taking their holidays well into August and September. That is greatly to the benefit of the tourist season but I shall cause a row with the Liberal Democrat Benches if I go into that.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, smiles. It reminds me of his intervention when he said that in his view the Welsh referendum result prospect is becoming better by the day. Why then, if noble Lords are so confident, have two separate days? But that is the argument we have already resolved.
I am glad about seven weeks. I am sorry to hear that the Government intend to overturn the amendment passed in your Lordships' House that the referendums for Wales and Scotland should be held on the same day. The arguments given, to put it mildly, were weak, indeed, very weak. They deserved to be beaten, and the decision of this House merits being endorsed by the other place. I am not sure that that will happen. The imperative put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Committee will be the one that rules; in other words, the only way to get a yes result, if that is possible at all in Wales, is to hold the referendum a week after the one held in Scotland. It will be the price of this little bit of gerrymandering if it does not work like that.
I am delighted that we are having seven and eight weeks. I would prefer the vote not to take place in August; that is a serious problem for all the campaigners. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, will find, in trying to campaign for the yes vote, that many people are away in August and that many of those at home in rural Scotland will be too busy dealing with tourists who take their holidays in August to bother with referendums.
However, we have made some progress in your Lordships' House. We have ensured that the White Paper is published before Third Reading. That was not certain before the Report stage. We also ensured before Report stage that we knew the date of the referendums. With those two small thank your to the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I, line 6, after ("and") insert ("income").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill we discussed the question of what taxation-varying powers the Scottish Parliament might have and what relevance that would have to the question which is to be put to the Scottish public. I was not in the least convinced by the arguments put forward by Ministers on this subject.
The puzzle is quite simply put. The Scottish Constitutional Convention's final document made it perfectly clear that the limited powers would be to vary the basic rate of income tax. It said:
"The parliament will be financed on a stable, long-term basis. This objective will be attained by basing the financial settlement for the parliament upon a continuation of the principle of equalisation of expenditure within the UK; upon autonomy for the parliament in respect of its expenditure; and upon the limited power of the parliament to vary the basic rate of income tax."
That position has been in all the speeches and publications I have read from the Labour Party except, I suspect, in the manifesto, which, as your Lordships know, is my nightly reading to ensure I do not infringe against this holy text, if I may call it that. There, the limited financial powers were just to vary revenue. They were not about income tax.
I looked at statements made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Donald Dewar, who said on BBC Radio Scotland, as reported in the Scotsman, that there was no retreat. At the time there were some question marks over whether or not the tax-varying powers would be allowed or whether people in, for example, the Treasury had decided there were fundamental defects surrounding that. Mr. Dewar added, when he had said that the Scottish Parliament would have a very substantial budget:
"We think it should be able to vary that budget if the needs of Scotland and electoral opinion makes that sensible".
He went on to say:
"There is no retreat. We hold to Our commitments and we will deliver. The parliament will have the power to vary income tax around the basic rate—the defined financial powers promised in the manifesto".
In a long article in the Financial Times of 11th June, Mr. Henry McLeish, the Minister responsible for devolution, made it clear that it was income tax-raising powers they were discussing.
It is difficult to pick out a particular quotation because almost every paragraph shows and underlines the fact that they are suggesting to the Scottish people that they are referring to income tax-raising powers and, of course, income tax-lowering powers. I should not keep saying "raising" because there is the potential to lower them, though, as your Lordships know, I managed to drag out from the Government—they were very reluctant to answer—what would happen if income tax were lowered by, say, 3p. in the pound. The answer I received was that the Treasury would drop the block grant to Scotland by £450 million. Given the way the current Government, local authorities and so on are always telling us how under-funded everything is in Scotland, I find it hard to believe that they would welcome £450 million being removed from their budget. But that is what will happen if they decide to reduce taxes. If they decide to increase them by 3p. in the pound they will have £450 million more to spend. I imagine that there will be a whole queue of people saying where they want the money spent.
All these quotations—from the article I referred to concerning Mr. McLeish, the quotation from Mr. Dewar and the quotation from the constitutional convention—make it clear that they are talking about income tax. My
1212
question again—I did not receive a suitable answer at Committee stage—is why not put "income" on the face of the Bill. It is a very small amendment; very, very small indeed. It simply means that I and my fellow Scots will look at a question which says, "I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have income tax-varying powers" or "I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have income tax-varying powers".
I know I should not be suspicious of the party opposite but I am afraid that the habits of a lifetime cannot be set aside easily. I am suspicious. I do not see any difficulty with adding the word "income". It makes clear on the face of the Bill and on the face of the ballot paper what Mr. Dewar has said, what Mr. McLeish has said and what the Scottish Constitutional Convention has said. So why do we not have a clear question? Why is the word left out?
The suspicious part of me says that it is left out because at some time in the future this Scottish Parliament may want to vary other taxes. The Government could then go back to this ballot paper and say, "The Scottish people agreed that the Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. It did not specify income tax-varying powers". They may say—we shall come to it later—that the White Paper will say "income tax-varying powers". But that is not on the face of these questions either. The Government are not committed to sticking to the White Paper. Why is the word "income" not on the face of the Bill? Why are the promises which Ministers are making and the constitutional convention made about income tax being the tax that is to be varied not on the face of the Bill?
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will have to work very hard, unless he accepts my amendment, to convince me and, I suspect, a fair number of my fellow Scots that the wide-ranging nature of this question is so that it will be open-ended; so that it will not tie a future Scottish parliament to income tax only, so that it will be able to look at value-added tax, excise duty and perhaps airport tax, and at all kinds of other taxes that are in the power of the Exchequer.
If the noble Lord does not accept my amendment, I can only conclude that the only reason why he will not accept it is in order to give this parliament, if it comes into being, a much more open-ended arrangement on taxation. I have little doubt that, for a year or two, if it happens, income tax is what will be varied, but then they will find that 3p. in the pound does not add up to much—£450 million in expenditure of £14 billion or £15 billion. Then they will say, "But we were not committed. No, you did not sign up, oh great Scottish public, just to income tax-varying. You signed up only to tax-varying. So perhaps we shall just vary a little more. We shall vary the other taxes". I hope that the noble Lord can set my suspicious mind at rest. However, short of accepting the amendment, I have to say to him that my suspicious mind will remain. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am puzzled by this amendment. If you have the general statement "tax-varying powers" then any specific tax is included. Therefore, an income tax-varying power is covered by tax-varying powers in general. As an economist I have

1213
never understood the fuss people make about income tax. Why is there this great fuss about income tax? One can raise all kinds of taxes. The income tax bogey was raised by the noble Lord's colleague in another place when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He went on calling it a "tartan tax". For a while he was worried about raising tax. Now, the penny has dropped that the tax could be reduced. What would be wrong if an airport tax were to be varied by the Scottish Parliament? If it were the wish of the Scottish people to give the Scottish Parliament tax-varying powers, so be it. It should be for the people to decide. The people of Scotland should be given a lot of choice. They should decide whether they want tax-raising powers for the parliament and then whoever is in charge in Scotland will decide which particular tax will be used because the circumstances may vary. Therefore, the broader interpretation is better than the narrower one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although a short amendment it is a very important one. Until we have the White Paper we have no idea what the legislative powers of a Scottish parliament may be. We have no idea what taxes it may be able to impose. They may include import taxes, excise duties, entertainment duties—all kinds of things. Surely, the main intention is that the parliament should have the power to vary income tax. If that is the main intention it should be stated in the question to be put to the people and in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has made out a very strong case indeed whether or not we have an idea of the content of the White Paper. Frankly, until we do know its content it is very difficult to exercise a judgment which is of sufficient interest to the Scottish people and which offers sufficient protection for them. I hope that we press the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I intervene in this matter on the Welsh side although the amendment deals only with the Scottish side. My noble friend Lord Renton has taken the words out of my mouth. It is the problem of the vagueness on which we are being asked to try to decide. The Bill is enormously vague about what the Welsh assembly may or may not do. We hope that in the White Paper tomorrow we shall discover a little more. However, as I understand it, it may not contain what we get at the end of this legislation. The amendment illustrates exactly our situation. I live the whole time in Wales; there are many who do not. I want to know exactly what I am voting for. And the more we know that is precise, the more I will be prepared to vote for, or maybe against, a Welsh assembly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will get the chance to speak a second time and therefore I address him in the hope that he can clarify his position. First, can the noble Lord tell me whether his party's position is still that it opposes devolution? Secondly, if there is devolution, is it his party's view that the Scottish parliament should not have any tax-raising powers?
1214
And, thirdly, if there is to be devolution and there are to be tax-raising powers, does his party believe that those powers should be limited to income tax? In other words, the noble Lord has three positions, one following from the other. That is the only way in which I can make sense of the Opposition's position.
I remember raising this matter when we were in Opposition and the question of the tartan tax arose. If the Scots are to have their own parliament, is it not rational that they should be able to make up their minds about what to do when they have that devolved parliament? It seems to me not only logical, but a matter of Scots' pride, that if devolution goes ahead, the Scots themselves make up their own minds. That is why I am slightly lost by the noble Lord's position.
The noble Lord may well be right that if there is to be a tax the correct one for the Scottish parliament to impose is income tax. But that is not to be decided at the referendum. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, because I assume that we are discussing Wales as well, which I always forget when these issues arise. I am given to understand that the Welsh will not have tax raising powers, so we are not discussing Wales. If I were a Welshman I would probably want to have tax raising powers as well. I would be very proud if I were a Welshman. However, that is all irrelevant. Noble Lords opposite are well aware that I have no influence on any of these matters. Surely the central issue is: why not let the Scots trust themselves to do what they want? In that sense, surely this amendment is irrelevant.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is entirely logical because he does not believe that the Scottish people have any judgment whatever. They threw out every Tory MP and therefore they must be wrong.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is not a question of what people on this side of the House think should be the tax-raising power for the Scottish parliament; it is about what the Government have confirmed over and over again as their intention, which is that tax-raising or tax-lowering should be on income tax. The Government have said that and they have ruled out everything else. I say that to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Desai. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made the case for me as far as I am concerned because my suspicion is that the Government do not want the people of Scotland to vote for tax-raising powers. They want to scare them into thinking that the tax-raising power could be not only income tax but might be additionally VAT or a sales tax. There is a whole range of things which could be affected. People are extremely alarmed at that prospect.
The Scottish people need to know what precisely the tax raising power is to be. They will only understand it properly if it is on the ballot paper. That is a very serious point. Not everyone will study the summary of the White Paper that will be circulated; very few will study

1215
the White Paper itself. People want to know how the parliament is going to affect them before they vote in a consultative referendum.
The Minister said in Committee that we should concentrate on two simple principles; namely, whether a Scottish parliament is wanted and whether it should have tax-raising powers. It is only reasonable that people should know the form that that tax-raising power will take—income tax or all the other things. Noble Lords opposite who do not live in Scotland understandably have not followed everything the Government have said up to date. There is a wide range of options whereby the Scottish people can pay for their parliament. To make the matter simple, it should be put on the ballot paper. That is not a difficult thing for the Government to do unless they want people to vote against tax-raising powers.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I was very glad to add my name in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I recall at Committee stage many of us tried to clarify what was meant by tax-varying powers. We were not very successful. But when one reads the report of those discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, very helpfully indicated that if the tax-raising powers were three pence in the pound on income tax, that would yield £450 million. Incidentally, £450 million is a very large amount of money per head of population. It is £100 for each man, woman and child. The Scottish people should be made aware of that.
It may be that the White Paper will reveal all and that in a sense the amendment is unnecessary. We may find that the White Paper gives the clues we want. If that is not the case then I believe that the Scottish voters have the right to know just what is intended. It is all very well to say, "You must trust them in due time." They should know now what is meant.
That brings me to my second point. We need to clarify what all this is about, particularly when it comes to the tax-varying powers. Will the people realise that that may seriously endanger the economy in the sense that new businesses may well look to locate elsewhere. They may say, "If Scotland has tax-varying powers, we shall not know where we stand, so let's look elsewhere. Let's go to Wales or to England; we must be careful about coming to Scotland because we do not know its form of taxation". It would be helpful if those who want the Scottish parliament to have tax-varying powers could explain whether they are limiting those powers to income tax or whether they will affect VAT or any other tax.
I plead for postponement on this question. I know that in a sense I am making a Second Reading speech, but this is an absolutely vital matter for both Houses, for the Union and for its three constituent parts. So, if we hammer away once or twice—or perhaps three times—and repeat ourselves, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me and others for that. This issue is so important. Indeed, I cannot think of any other issue that is likely to come before us in the next Parliament which begins to compare with the possibility of the break-up of the Union by our getting this wrong as opposed to our getting it right.
1216
I come now to why I plead for postponement. We do not know how the relationship between Westminster and the Scottish parliament will come out. We know that the Scottish parliament will have an opportunity to divide the block grant, which may be as much £15 billion. That is a huge responsibility with which suddenly to be confronted. It will take a long time to work it out in practice. But that is not all. In the early stages, all of the issues of which your Lordships are well aware, such as the West Lothian question and that of the exact relationship between the two parliaments, will come to the fore. Really and truly, the Scottish parliament will be fully occupied in its first session. Therefore, I plead that we agree that there should be a "No" vote on the second question on the basis that it is open to the Scottish parliament and to Westminster, if they find that there is a need for a taxing power, to introduce it in, say, the second or third Scottish parliament. What's the hurry?
My family motto happens to be "Gang warily". Noble Lords may say that that is rather a pawky motto, but I believe that in this case postponement is what is called for. Let us wait on this vital issue because if the provisions are accepted as they stand, it will be the beginning of the break-up of the Union—of that there can be no doubt—because as we all know, the power of the purse is what counts. If we ask the people of Scotland this second question and if we get the answer "Yes", which I deeply hope that we shall not, I can see many quarrels lying ahead of us. Indeed, the English may for a time—perhaps for the first time—say, "What's all this about? We have been very successful together. Over the past 300 years we have built up an empire such as has never been seen before in the history of the world and the Scots made a huge contribution to that". Are we to put all that in danger?
As it stands, the amendment to a degree limits and makes the position more easily understood by the people of Scotland. I do not want to say that the question will be more palatable to those who might say "Yes". I hope that they will not, but I believe that our amendment is just what is needed from all angles. Even so, I plead that we do not have any tax-varying powers in the first parliament, but that we look at the question again in the future.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the tax-varying powers which have been put forward by the Government have always been presented, as my noble friend said when moving the amendment, as relating to income tax. The burden of that—or it might be the benefit—falls primarily on the people of Scotland. Much as we may like or dislike it, it is not of major concern to us as much as might be the case if there were a variation of other taxes. If we assume that other taxes can be varied under the Bill, let us consider what might happen if the Scottish parliament were able to reduce excise duty. Lorries would troop over the Scottish border in massive numbers, as happens on boats to France. Other taxes could also be varied. The impact on other parts of the

1217
United Kingdom could be severe. It is important that the power should be confined to income tax, as my noble friend suggested.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly and hope to avoid falling into the trap of making a Second Reading speech such as we have heard during our discussion of this amendment. I say at once that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on the position of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. What the convention has talked about is income tax. I agree with the noble Lord on the position of Donald Dewar, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has made it clear time and time again that what the Government are talking about is income tax. I agree with the position of the junior Minister in the Scottish Office, Henry McLeish, in his article in the Financial Times that what the Government are talking about is income tax.
Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is that when I am told something I innocently believe it. I do not have the kind of suspicious mind that the noble Lord has. My position on this is quite clear: this is not a matter for the referendum, but for the primary legislation when it comes before both Houses of Parliament following the outcome of the referendum on the one hand and following the consultation on the White Paper on the other hand.
Let me pose this question to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. My noble friend Lord Peston has already asked him three or four questions, but perhaps I may add one. Why pick out taxation to appear in a definitive form on the ballot paper at the referendum? Why not ask the people of Scotland, "Are you in favour of a Scottish parliament with 190 Members?" Why not ask the people of Scotland, "Are you in favour of a Scottish parliament elected by proportional representation?" Why not ask the people of Scotland, "Are you in favour of a Scottish parliament that does not follow slavishly the Westminster role model and where we can have pre-legislative committees?" Why pick out the one issue of taxation?
Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, answers those questions, I shall answer them for him because my answer will be much more accurate than his. The answer is that the scare stories were started running by Sir Bruce Pattullo, the governor of the Bank of Scotland. In this debate noble Lords opposite are deliberately attempting to set that scare running so that if they cannot frustrate a "Yes, yes" vote, they will seek to obtain a "Yes, no" vote. That is what this is all about and in his honest moments the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will confess that that is the true position.
There is no valid reason why one issue only—in this case, taxation—should be selected for presentation to the people of Scotland in order, as is claimed from the other side of your Lordships' House, to make the question more definitive. This is clearly a matter for the principal legislation. It is not a matter for the referendum. If it were a matter for the referendum, this question should not stand alone. We should ask those
1218
other questions about 190 Members, proportional representation and pre-legislative committees. There is no good reason for selecting this issue, except that it is a good frightener, and that is what it will be used for during the whole of the referendum campaign.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, because I want to assist the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The noble Lord pointed out that the constitutional convention, of which he was co-chairman until he resigned on whether there should be a second proposition on taxation, recommended that it should be income tax only and that it could be varied up and down by 3p in the pound.
As far as I know, the Government confirmed that. What we have heard since is that the Government intend that the varying powers should affect income tax. If that is the case, it should be written into the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Mackay suggested. He will undoubtedly reply in full to the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
There is another point. I am not making a Second Reading speech, because I did so on Second Reading. I do not deal with Sir Bruce Pattullo's points about income tax, and the problem of dealing only with 3p on income tax where dividends and so on are concerned. We are not dealing with questions; they are propositions in the Bill, unlike previous referendums in this country. From all we understand, it was the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, who insisted that there should be a second proposition on tax varying powers in the referendum in Scotland.
Media rumours in Scotland now are that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that restricting, because he apparently has ideas about changing the income tax bands. If he does what one thinks that he has in mind, it would mean that the amount of money raised in Scotland—if the tax varying powers meant an increase—would be less than the sum that has been spoken about. There are problems, even if the matter is restricted to income tax.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, one of the most unpleasant taxes we have ever had was the selective employment tax which we had a few years ago. Whatever taxes are agreed, they should be specified. It should be made plain to the Scots people that the Parliament at Westminster will continue to have the final say.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Government are right to resist the amendment. What is the point of Scotland having its own parliament unless it is to be given as many powers overall as, let us say, Delaware or Rhode Island. The voters of Delaware and Rhode Island can opt for a sales tax or a tax on alcohol or tobacco which is 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. higher or, possibly, lower than those prevailing in New Jersey and Massachusetts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Why should not the people of Scotland be given the same options if—it is a big if—they choose to vote for them?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps another Englishman might be rash enough to intervene in the

1219
debate. I have just two points to make. The first, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is that I have always understood that the prime argument for devolution in Scotland—in principle I have no difficulty with that as a proposition—has always been that it will strengthen the unity of the UK. That then is something that we must consider.
In all my public life, the one factor that has mattered and counted has been money. It was the Government's decision when in opposition to have that question on the ballot paper. It is the Government's decision and not anyone else's. It is relevant. This is not a Second Reading speech; it is very much a Committee stage speech, because I am trying to answer points that have been made. If the assurances that we have from people such as Mr. Dewar and others that this is an income tax matter—I accept that it is a matter for the devolution Bill proper when we come to it—stand, that is fine. The difficulty is that the noble Lords, Lord Peston, Lord Desai and Lord Mackie, have raised an issue which is potentially divisive to the unity of the UK if one has a large number of varied tax rates across the whole spectrum.
It is one thing to quote experiences in the USA when one is dealing with one nation which has within it separate states with populations which are far larger than that of the whole of the UK, and distances that run in thousands of miles where we are accustomed to running in hundreds, but we are dealing with a small nation state. I have no difficulty with the proposition, if the proposition is income tax. If that is what it is going to be, I do not understand why there should be any difficulty in amending the question on the ballot paper. If that is what it is going to be, it would be simple to accept the point here and now and have it. It is noble Lords opposite who have raised the suspicions of ordinary people like me that it might mean something else.
Lord Rees: My Lords, it is true that we have had some speeches that have verged on Second Reading speeches this afternoon and during the two days in Committee. The reason for that is not difficult to find. It is because the Government have approached this important piece of constitutional legislation from the wrong end. We are going to ask the residents of Scotland and Wales to approve of something which has not been carefully sifted and thought out in the UK legislature.
I appreciate that there has been a Scottish convention. However, not being a resident of Scotland I confess that I have not followed its debates as closely as perhaps I should have done. We have not had the advantage of a convention in Wales, and so perhaps the matter has not been sifted out as carefully there as it may have been in Scotland. Whether or not it has been sifted out in Scotland, some important issues appear to have escaped the Government's attention, and have not been offered to us for debate.
It is said, "Leave it to the good sense of the Scots". That is an attractive proposition to someone who had a Scots mother even though he is resident in Wales and not in Scotland. Then I paused to think. Let us consider whether the question of taxation is of supreme importance. As a general proposition, of course it is because it is the basis of so much of our legislation and so many of our debates
1220
in both Houses of Parliament. More than that, the Government have chosen to single out taxation as being a matter of supreme importance, to be approved or disapproved by the residents of Scotland, because, after all, it is in the schedule to the Bill.
If one asks, "Why not leave this to the Scots to decide if and when they have their own parliament?" the answer is that the Government say that they want a view from the residents of Scotland. We are bound to think a little bit about these matters. Unfortunately, we cannot escape doing so now, because the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has told us that we must press forward with this matter and that the view of the residents of Scotland must be taken in September before the main devolution legislation has even been printed. Indeed, I believe that supreme pressure has been brought to bear on the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who until today has treated our interventions with courtesy and almost with reason. He has been a little offensive, if he will allow me to say so, but I realise that he has been under intense pressure, as have his colleagues in Cabinet. He is having to defend the indefensible, which, as I found in government, is sometimes a difficult operation.
Let us return to the issue before us. Yes, we want to know the questions which will be asked of the residents of Scotland. The questions relate to taxation and the scope of the powers which may be conferred on a Scottish parliament. After all, we know nothing about the Bill which will be introduced—that is, if a Bill is to be introduced, and we must not anticipate the outcome of the referendums—and we will not see the White Paper until later this week. We will want to know the degree to which the Government will pay attention to the no doubt cogent points which will be made during the debate on the White Paper before we rise for the Summer Recess. Of course we must focus on that particular question.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said that he was a trusting person. That is an admirable characteristic and we must all try to take at face value even our opponents across the Chamber. However, if all that is to be proposed in the White Paper and in any subsequent legislation relates to varying the powers to raise or to lower income tax, why not accept this simple amendment? On the other hand, the Government may wish to reserve their position to see exactly how things are taken north of the Border, or to see the problems which will no doubt be turned up by the Inland Revenue. My heart bleeds for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it does not often do so—who must try to reconcile the propositions with the general framework of direct taxation in this country. Having once had the privilege of receiving advice while appearing in the other place on matters of taxation, I appreciate the kind of detail and well-thought-out advice which are no doubt being tendered to Treasury Ministers by the Inland Revenue.
If the matter is as simple as noble Lords opposite would have us believe and there is nothing more than marginal adjustments to income tax—although, as has emerged in the debate, the technical difficulties of that will be considerable—they should accept the amendment. If the matter is not so simple, we are right in ventilating the points today. We shall expect to consider the matter closely when we read the White Paper. We shall have to

1221
return to it on the Second Reading of the proposed legislation, and we must go back to substantive legislation if a proper devolution Bill is introduced.
Finally, this is not a matter only for our friends north of the Border. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Boardman and others, if we go a little further, and even if there are major adjustments to income tax north of the Border, that may have a considerable effect on residents south of the Border and in Wales. We operate in one economic entity. Our taxation system, which has been developed over a century but not always to our satisfaction, is highly complex. Once we start raking about into that structure there will be many side effects and I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his colleagues have yet bothered to think them through.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the amendment is intended to clarify the nature of the tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament, upon which the Scottish electorate will be invited to vote at a referendum. Its purpose is to change the references to tax-varying powers so that it refers specifically to income tax. In my contribution, I shall set myself two tasks. The first is to try to deal with as many of the points—some well made—as possible. The second is slightly more difficult; it is to remove the suspicions which lurk in the deeply suspicious mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I do not wish to speculate upon whether that cast of mind is the product of his being a Minister for so long in the previous administration.
As regards my first task, I ask noble Lords to listen to what I say because the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others raised the spectre of a whole series of taxes being introduced, raised or changed; for instance, excise duty and sales tax. I ask your Lordships to reflect on the fact that what has been said throughout the discussion in Scotland, the debate in the other place and the debate in this House has centred specifically and solely on income tax—
Lord Renton: My Lords, if that is so, why not state it in the Bill?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall come to that point later. It will be stated in the devolution Bill, but I shall come to the reason why it is not stated in this Bill. First, I wish to make it clear that we have said throughout that the powers to vary tax will relate to income tax. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite will be able to come forward with any contrary quotation from members of the Government. I am happy to repeat that and I hope that it clarifies the situation definitively.
Furthermore, that power will be to vary the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p. That is an important constraint and an important factor. Liability for the varied tax rate will be determined by residence in Scotland. That is a second important factor. If that power were used, the resources available to the Scottish parliament would increase or decrease
1222
accordingly, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I do not believe that there has ever been any secret about that.
Noble Lords opposite propose that the fact that the tax is income tax should be reflected in the Bill and I understand some of the arguments and intentions behind the amendment. However, not only is it unnecessary, but such an amendment, while appearing to offer precision and clarity, would actually deceive. The inclusion of the words "income tax" does not explain the Government's proposals in sufficient detail. The Government's proposals are limited to varying income tax by up to 3p. That is a variation of income tax paid by people in Scotland. If that range of explanation is not in the question, the statement "varying income tax" is a complete distortion. It removes two of the fundamentally important constraints around which the power to vary income tax is based.
We have adopted an approach which was well explained by my noble friend Lord Ewing. It is based on limiting the questions to the two matters of principle: "Do you want a Scottish parliament?"; "Do you want that parliament to have tax-varying powers?". We decided to adopt that approach for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Ewing identified.
Once we move away from principle into detail, we are not presenting the electorate with a question on the ballot paper; we are presenting it with an essay. It would go on and on, spelling out the precise detail of the composition and powers of the proposed Scottish parliament. It would spell out the precise limitations and reservations on tax varying. As I said in Committee, there would be a ballot paper which looks more like the ballot paper used in elections in the United States of America which go on and on. That is not the way forward. We must have simple, clear propositions of principle.
Let us return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that somehow lurking in the political undergrowth of Scotland or this Government—not that this Government have a political undergrowth—there is some deeply worked-out, conceived plot that at a certain time in the future we shall hold up a piece of paper which says, "Ah, the Scottish electorate voted for tax-varying powers. Okay boys, we will extend them. We will give them a whole raft of different tax-varying powers".
The way to deal with that particular question is to look at the ballot paper because the ballot paper, as contained in the schedule, refers specifically to the Government's proposals which are the proposals upon which the electorate, in the referendum, is being invited to vote. The Government's proposals in the White Paper will spell out their proposals in relation to income tax and the limitation to 3p. That is what the Government's proposals are all about. That is why it is unnecessary to have a spurious degree of detail in the question. But more important, that alleged detail will deceive and lead to imprecision and lack of clarity.
The way forward is to stick to the two propositions of principle. Assuming a positive outcome in the referendum, the details of how such a power will operate will be contained in the main devolution legislation.

1223
Details about the tax-varying powers, the 3 pence in the pound variation and how it will operate, will be embedded obviously and necessarily in the main legislation. Therefore, there is no need for spurious amendments at this stage. On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the longer the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, went on, the less I thought that my amendment was spurious. Indeed, as the debate went on, it became clear that the amendment is far from spurious.
Half way through, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, intervened and asked me why I should select only taxation for a special position in the referendum. I have not chosen the questions for the referendum; I have not chosen a referendum; I have not even chosen that policy. That is the Government's policy and those are the Government's questions. They are not my questions at all.
I do not believe that there is a particularly compelling reason for having a second question. If the first question encompasses the whole of the White Paper, it seems to me that we do not need a second question.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, knows more about the referendum issue than most of your Lordships. I was intrigued by what I thought was his attempt to rewrite history. He said that the reason for the second question is because of some scare story by Sir Bruce Pattullo, the Governor of the Bank of Scotland, about the damage in relation to varying or increasing income tax.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, just before the noble Lord winds down his misleading path, perhaps I may clarify matters. The point that I was making was in relation not to the second question at all but in relation to the noble Lord's amendment. He latched on to Bruce Pattullo's coat-tails and I was hoping to prise him off them before he goes any further down that road.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always glad of enlightenment and an indication that my understanding was not correct. I shall read the noble Lord's speech with some interest because I was sure that he was referring to the general question. But if he says it was only about my small addition to the general question, that saves the noble Lord being reminded that the voile face on having a referendum was performed by the Labour party in June 1996 and brought about the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, from the joint convenorship or chairmanship of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. However, I should say to the noble Lord that I did not devise my amendment with Sir Bruce Pattullo's speech in mind, but that is an added argument to my case for looking specifically at what those tax-varying powers should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, should have listened—and I hope did listen—carefully to two of his noble friends and one noble Lord on the Cross-Benches who put forward the proposition, which is sensible in its own argument, that if tax-varying powers are given to a Parliament, why should that be limited to income tax? The noble Lord, Lord Monson, from the Cross Benches
1224
pointed out correctly that in Delaware and Rhode Island it is possible to do a good deal more than that; and asked why the Scottish Parliament should be any different.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Peston, both distinguished economists, put forward an argument which, if this parliament comes about, the people in it will hear from Scottish economists, although none will hope to be as distinguished as the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Peston, especially the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He had some interesting views on the economic policy of his own party when it was in opposition and very positive views on the economic policy of the then government. However, I shall be rebuked for straying from the narrow point in relation to the questions in the referendum.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, rightly drew to the attention of the House the question as to whether this parliament should be tied down as to the kind of tax it is permitted to raise. He put forward the proposition that the broader the tax-raising base, the better. I believe that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on that subject on a number of occasions in the UK context and I am not surprised that he made it in this context.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I still oppose devolution. I hope that the parliament does not have tax-raising powers because I believe, like Sir Bruce Pattullo, that it would be damaging to the Scottish economy and that it would put up taxes in Scotland. Frankly, I do not believe for a moment that the parliament would ever put the taxes down because I read the Scottish press and I see a litany of the words "under-funded" this and "under-funded" that and so on. Therefore, I believe that those of us who live in Scotland will have to face an increasing tax burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out that the correct tax to raise may not be income tax. To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his noble friend Lord Desai have let the cat out of the bag and are endorsing my argument that if you have a parliament with tax raising powers, there may well be an argument that that should include a lot more than the variation of income tax. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was helped in that regard by the interventions of his two noble friends. Nevertheless, what they said should carry a lot of weight when it comes to the general proposition as to why that question is drawn so broadly when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is so determined in his contributions both today and in Committee to define it very narrowly.
In Committee he said that the only tax varying powers that the Government have in mind for a Scottish Parliament relate to income tax, and that it would be confined to 3p in the pound. He seems to be worried that the insertion of the word "income" would still make it too broadly based. Therefore, I have devised another amendment and, if the noble Lord indicates that he would accept the amendment on Third Reading, I shall happily withdraw my amendment this afternoon and bring forward a different amendment on Third Reading. The question would then read:
"I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have the power to vary the basic rate of income tax upwards or downwards by up to 3p in the pound".

1225
That is not dissimilar from the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who unfortunately cannot be here today but who indicated that had he been here, he would have been keen to discuss those issues. I grant your Lordships the fact that that amendment would add a few words, but it would not add significantly more words to the question than appear in the Welsh question, where, of course, the words are doubled because they are set out in both English and Welsh. So the Minister's argument is not a very good one. I had hoped that the noble Lord would indicate his willingness to accept that amendment on Third Reading, but, unfortunately, I see that he is not willing to do so.
I return, therefore, to my main point. I do not see why the words "income tax" should not be clear to the electorate in Scotland, myself included. It should be clear that people are voting for or against income tax being varied, and only income tax. Indeed, that could make a huge difference to the votes of people who do not pay income tax and who may be happy to vote for increasing income tax, but who would not be happy to vote for an increase in excise duty or VAT.
I am trying to be helpful to the Government in helping them honour their election pledges. They are having some difficulty in Scotland because everyone thought that there would be no tolls on Skye Bridge after the new dawn had come on 2nd May; but there are still tolls on that bridge. Moreover, no one thought that there would be any private prisons, but there are to be such prisons. I return again to the manifesto—I have almost reached the stage where I can remember it off by heart because I am so often reminded of it—which refers to law-making powers,
"including defined and limited financial powers to vary revenue".
As the question stands, I submit that it is very widely defined and that it certainly is not limited. It is not limited as to the scope of the kind of tax which may be imposed. I suggest that my word added to the question would improve the definition and the limitation of that financial power. It would, therefore, help the party opposite to fulfil their manifesto commitments. In that spirit, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lindsay, E.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Biddulph, L.

Marlesford, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brentford, V.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Carnock, L.

Palmer, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cox, B.

Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Savile, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Erroll, E.

Sempill, L.

Forbes, L,

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hertford, M.

Trenchard, V.

Holderness, L.

Tugendhat, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Leigh, L.

Wharton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Falkender, B.

Berkeley, L.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Blease, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gilbert, L.

Blyth, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Borrie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gregson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Grenfell, L.

Calverley, L.

Grey, E.

Carlisle, E.

Hamwee, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Hardie, L.

Chandos, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hooson, L.

Desai, L.

Howell, L.

Dixon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hughes, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Eatwell.L.

1251

Jay of Paddington, B.

Peston, L.

Jeger, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Judd, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Kennet, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Rochester, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Sewel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

McCarthy, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNally, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thurso, V.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Parry, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Paul, L.

Winston, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

National Lottery
5.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on
1228
reforming the National Lottery. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about reforming the National Lottery. I am today publishing a White Paper, The People's Lottery. It will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
"The White Paper takes forward the plans outlined in our election manifesto and in the details we published in The People's Money on 23rd April. Both received the endorsement of the British people on 1st May.
"I believe the package of proposals we are publishing today will mark a turning point in the fortunes of our National Lottery. It will make it even more popular and even more relevant to people's daily lives. It is less than three years since the first tickets were sold. Yet in that short time the lottery has become a tremendous success. Nine out of 10 adults play at least occasionally. There have been 180 million winning tickets—360 of them for more than £1 million.
"The lottery has already raised over £3½ billion for good causes. By the time the current licence ends, we expect it will have raised £10 billion. Thanks to the initiative and hard work of those who have been involved in developing projects, and the lottery distribution bodies, funds have already been committed to over 24,000 projects throughout the United Kingdom. But I suspect it is the smaller proposals which make the most difference to many people's lives—like the grant of some £2,000, featured in the White Paper, for a summer arts festival for children predominantly from low income families in Norfolk. I welcome this success. The proposals in the White Paper are about building on it. We will be introducing the legislation needed to give effect to aspects of these proposals later this year.
"The proposals in the White Paper fall under four headings. First, we will set up a new good cause—the New Opportunities Fund. It will support specific initiatives, additional to core programmes funded through taxation, to support our priorities of health, education and the environment. Subject to Parliament, the fund will begin its work next year with three initiatives, two helping to raise standards in schools and one promoting better health. Other initiatives will follow—for the environment as well as for health and education.
"By 2001 the fund will be supporting programmes of activity outside the school day involving at least half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools. Activities will range from extra coaching in basic literacy and numeracy to new opportunities for creative and sporting education and structured play, fun as well as learning—helping parents who work as well as raising school standards. By 2001 the fund will also have trained some half a million teachers and 10,000 public librarians to help children and adults learn throughout their lives using new technologies.

1229
"The new fund's health initiative will be a network of healthy living centres throughout the United Kingdom. They will provide a wide variety of facilities and services in different ways and to help different groups but all with the same fundamental aim of promoting good health. In designing the detail of these initiatives and delivering money to projects the new fund will work closely with bodies expert in the relevant fields in each part of the United Kingdom.
"The financial success of the lottery will enable us to set up the new fund alongside the existing good causes. In 1994 the lottery was forecast to raise £9 billion for good causes in the period up to 2001. We now expect it to raise £1 billion on top of that. It is from that extra £1 billion that we will find initial support for the New Opportunities Fund.
"We will continue to allocate the bulk of the proceeds of the lottery to the existing good causes. I pay tribute to the work the distributing bodies have already done—some fine examples are included in the White Paper—and I want them to build on their success. That is the second main theme of the White Paper.
"Excellent as the distributors' record has been, it has been limited by some aspects of the framework within which they have to operate. These constraints are at the root of the concerns expressed about lottery distribution—the lack of a clear overall strategy, the uneven geographical allocation of grants, the failure of some activities to get enough help from the lottery, and the feeling that decisions are remote and unaccountable.
"The Bill will contain measures to help us work with the distributors to tackle these constraints. I want to encourage a debate involving the distributors and everyone else with an interest in making a success of the lottery on the way distribution will work within the new framework—and on the extent to which we can make progress in the same direction before the legislation comes into force. Among the main issues on which I am consulting are how the existing distributors can provide even more support for our priorities of health, education and the environment; the contribution they can make to regeneration; how, through delegation and working together, they can meet needs better; and how they can bring decision-making closer to the grass roots.
"I now come to our third major proposal. It is a major part of our vision of a lottery for the people. We will use a part of the £ 1 billion of extra lottery money to establish NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. NESTA will help ensure the fruits of the outstanding talents with which our nation is blessed and benefit our own country rather than others. It will encourage the development of an environment which fosters creative talent and innovation and allows it to flourish for the benefit of the country, its economy and its people. In doing so it will support my central objective of promoting the creative industries.
1230
"NESTA will have three simple objectives: to help talented individuals to develop their full potential in the creative activities and industries, and in science and technology; to help to turn creativity and ideas into products or services which are effectively exploited with rights protected; and to contribute to the advancement of public education about, and awareness and appreciation of the areas with which NESTA is concerned.
"These objectives will be set out in the forthcoming Bill, but once established as a trust independent of Government, NESTA will determine for itself its priorities and activities. Its first task will be to map what support and provision already exists, so that its own activities complement existing publicly and privately funded programmes.
"Finally, the White Paper outlines our proposals to make the lottery itself a more efficient and transparent operation. In the White Paper we invite proposals to meet the twin objectives of maximising the return to good causes and removing unnecessary profit. Within the framework we set the licence will go to the bidder who will deliver the greatest return while running the lottery efficiently, transparently and with propriety. So that the selection of a new operator is seen to be independent and objective, we will appoint a panel to assist the director-general in his choice, including people with expertise in business, lottery distribution and the views of consumers.
"We want to ensure that the director-general has the full range of powers necessary to make sure that the operator complies with its licence. The Bill will therefore contain provision for him to fine the operator where serious licence breaches occur.
"I look forward to the widest possible consultation on our proposals, from right honourable and honourable Members, and everyone else with an interest in building on the lottery's success, in the consultation period which is now beginning. To help everyone participate, a summary of the proposals is available in a leaflet which will be distributed widely throughout the country in the coming weeks.
"A new good cause; a reform of lottery distribution; NESTA, to unlock people's potential; better operation and regulation—this White Paper sets out to enable the National Lottery to become even more successful and to become truly a people's lottery".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.21p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement on the reforms to the National Lottery in the White Paper.
During the week in which the National Lottery was launched, I said in my maiden speech that it was expected to provide huge additional resources for our national heritage, the arts, sports and charities, and that it could be the most important piece of legislation in the heritage field since the Second World War. Financially, it has proved exactly that.

1231
Is it not churlish of the Government now not to congratulate John Major and the previous Conservative government who set up the largest, most successful lottery in the world, played by over 30 million and raising over £3.5 billion for good causes in two years? Why do the Government want to play killjoy, stopping people winning money and having a little fun? The lottery Bill was debated at length in both Houses. The outcome was that at all costs it should be independent of government interference. What we are now witnessing is blatant contravening of the spirit of the agreement by the party opposite.
Arising from what the Secretary of State said in another place, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he can assure the House that funds raised by the National Lottery will not be used as a substitute for public spending but will be additional to government expenditure? Does he accept that lottery money spent on education and health projects violates the additionality principle? I am sure he would also agree that essential services like education, health and the environment cannot be properly funded by relying on the lottery because it is inherently an unreliable source of income. Vital public services should be financed from taxation and should not be dependent on the vagaries of the lottery.
The Statement is a little unclear as to where the fine money will come from in a non-profit organisation, as mentioned in the Labour Party's manifesto. In less than three months, the words "not for profit" do not even appear. The organisation can be fined as a result of the new powers of the director-general of Oflot. Will the Government raid the charities or good causes for money? Do we really need two operators and a panel of new businessmen? Is that not just another quango? What would be the costs?
I sympathise with the Secretary of State for having his chest raided by the Treasury. Only one person is smiling today—the Chancellor. Emptying community chests and depriving local projects enable him to balance the books. The lottery was meant to be kept at arm's length from government. Will the Government intervene next to nationalise what is already the people's lottery? Perhaps they would like to turn it into premium bonds. Is this the start of new Labour's nationalisation programme?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and receive it with mixed feelings. We appreciate some of the thinking underlying the Statement and the White Paper; they appear almost simultaneously. I have been able only to glance over the White Paper.
At first sight the Government seem to take a curious view of the National Lottery which is rather removed from reality. When the issue was debated in your Lordships' House the main objection from the Opposition was that should funds become available in the amounts predicted—indeed, they far exceeded them—the Government of the time would be tempted to use them for purposes which should be met out of
1232
taxation. The present Government are doing just that by adding to the good causes the proposals in the White Paper.
While some of us had qualms about the wisdom of a national lottery and the effect that it would have on poor people's income and spare time, there is no doubt that the lottery has been extremely successful. I agree with the noble Baroness. It has been successful because it has been efficiently run. We are anxious to hear more, as we undoubtedly shall, about how the Government will approach the running of the lottery after Camelot's contract expires. The Government seem to have reversed somewhat on the proposal after many high moral words about "not-for-profit" lotteries rather than "non-profit" lotteries—a carefully worded phrase. They seem to accept that a profit is necessary. Calling it a people's lottery is rather good jargon. It is rather like talking about a fair profit or a just profit.
I hope that my noble friends on these Benches will agree that it is extremely unwise to tamper with something that is going so well. Often in a commercial company someone comes up with an idea, and you say, "We'll give you a commission for your idea", although you do not think much of it. Then that person starts to make more out of the commission on the idea than the chief executive. The accounts department always tries to knock down the commission. Because of the extreme success of the lottery and the agreement reached—after all, Camelot takes only 1p out for every card filled in—it has made extremely large amounts of what the Government term profit. That is profit, and profit well earned. I believe the Government will agree with me that there were some unseemly pictures of Camelot executives making V-signs for victory when they heard of their increased emoluments as a result of the success of the lottery. But that was the mistake of the company's public relations. I hope that the Minister can assure me that when the matter is fully examined, the Government will ensure that the criteria established by Camelot will be at least matched by those the Government propose to put in its place. Whatever else Camelot has done, it has made the lottery extremely attractive for those who buy tickets twice a week. If it had not been so efficient, we should have seen a marked drop-off in the turnover of the lottery.
Perhaps I may mention one or two other areas of anxiety which the noble Lord may be able to answer in some measure. I refer to the idea that now certain areas of health, education and environment will be given the chance to dip into the lottery pot. How are the Government able to justify amounts going to those areas which one would normally expect to be funded out of Treasury moneys, out of central taxation?
What is the difference, for example, between a teacher being trained to be more efficient and productive in his or her profession when that is paid for out of government initiatives through taxation and what is suggested in the White Paper? Is teacher education now to be subject to the fluctuations of a gambling activity? Surely, it should be treated as an activity with a certain, rather than uncertain, end. The lottery may not be as profitable in future as it has been.

1233
There is another curious matter which we shall have the opportunity of discussing. The White Paper rightly points out the great blessings of talent in our country. No one would disagree with the conclusion that such talent exists. We are to dip into the lottery pot to make sure that what is produced and invented as a result of that talent will now be exploited and we shall be able to gather in more of the profits than we were previously required to do. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, it has always been a cultural fact in this country that, for all our great talent, we often do not reap the rewards, from the film industry, the motor industry or whatever, because we do not apply long-term thinking in many areas. Sadly, in marketing and other areas, we are out-performed by other nations, notably the United States and Japan, closely followed by other areas of the Far East. I am therefore interested to know what impression the Minister believes taking money from the lottery fund will have on changing what is a cultural phenomenon in this country; namely, that the fruits of our many talented people are picked up and exploited by other countries, which often make the profits. We rightly begrudge them those profits, because they are based on our ideas. Is this an appropriate area in which to use these moneys?
Finally—I am sorry to be so tedious about this matter—does the Minister not agree that it would be better initially to attempt to continue with the way in which the lottery performs now and try to bring about a greater take-up of funds available in the five areas presently designated—in particular, charities, sports and the arts. Only about 25 per cent. in total of the funds available are taken up, and for all kinds of reasons. Some people are chary about applying, and in many cases there is difficulty in choosing. Mistakes have been made and always will be. How is it that the Government now propose to follow the very grandiose scheme in the White Paper when there is a sad need to make sure that the distribution of funds as already structured is more fully and completely achieved?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for the way in which they responded to this admittedly complex Statement about what is an admittedly complex White Paper. I am happy to confirm at the outset that the noble Baroness's maiden speech at the time of the original establishment of the lottery was prophetic. She correctly anticipated the benefits that would come from the lottery. I am happy to join her in congratulating all those—it was not a party political matter—who supported and encouraged the establishment of the National Lottery and contributed to its success, acknowledged in the Statement and in the White Paper.
The noble Baroness rightly said that the principal point of the distribution of lottery funds to good causes was that it should be independent, that it should be at arm's length from government. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made very much the same point. The noble Baroness rightly said that funds from the National Lottery should not be a substitute for public spending. I give the absolute assurance that that will not be the
1234
case. It is not our intention that funds, either from the existing distributors or from the new distributors—that is, the New Opportunities Fund and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—should be under the control of government. The existing distributors have always worked, just as Camelot has worked, under direction and advice from government. That was not only established by the existing Act but was continued by subsequent directions. No one ever thought it improper for government to express their views, just as nobody thought it improper for the director-general of the lottery to express his views, where appropriate, on the activities of Camelot.
When we talk about initiatives in health, education and environment as being the first activities of concentration of the New Opportunities Fund, I confirm that these are not, and never were intended to be, core expenditure items from taxation. The provision of schools and buildings, the funding of teachers and education, is the role of taxation and of the Chancellor. I do not think that the Chancellor will in any way be smiling at what is proposed today. The specific example of teacher training was raised. What is proposed is a one-off attempt to deal with the problem that something like 40 per cent. of existing teachers have never received any training in information technology other than at a very basic level. This one-off attempt is necessary to bring them up to scratch in order that all children in all schools can benefit from teachers who understand information technology.
The same is true of the health centres that are proposed. Those do not come within the ordinary remit of the National Health Service and never have done. Some have been provided by local authorities and some by private initiatives, but it has never been a priority for the National Health Service to do what is proposed in the White Paper. I repeat, with all the strength at my command, that it is not our intention to depart from the principle of additionality which says that proceeds for good causes from the lottery should be in addition to those provided by public expenditure.
The noble Baroness questioned the idea of fining the lottery company in the case of serious breaches of the rules. The legislative framework proposed will be designed to ensure that the regulator has a range of sanctions available according to the nature of the operator and according to any breach of licence conditions. It will be up to him to choose the appropriate sanction. If he operates effectively, as I am sure he will, he will make sure that any fines come from the operator's income rather than from good causes.
I was slightly puzzled by the noble Baroness's reference to a panel of new businessmen. There will of course be distributors, both for NESTA and for the New Opportunities Fund. Indeed, the arm's-length nature of NESTA will be even greater than for the other funds. The intention is that the distributors will have an amount of capital and freedom to use the income from that capital as they think fit within the guidelines set down, and the amounts they have will be dependent upon the returns from that capital.

1235
I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for the short time he has had to study the papers. It was my experience over many years that this has always been a difficulty for those in opposition. However, it has led him into error in thinking that we have succumbed to the temptation to use the National Lottery for purposes which would otherwise properly be met from taxation.
The noble Viscount is correct in saying that the National Lottery is efficient because it has been efficiently run; I certainly acknowledge that. But that does not mean that it is not possible to improve the efficiency of the National Lottery, the directions which are given to it and the way in which an operator is chosen.
Our primary concern in the choice of a new operator will be to maximise the return to good causes. We believe that the public will prefer to see that objective achieved by a not-for-profit operator; but, if we cannot have that within the primary objective of maximising income to good causes, then so be it. All we are ruling out at this stage is the two extremes, one, a state-run lottery run in effect by civil servants, which we do not think would be appropriate, and the other, a lottery with an open-ended profit commitment, which is what we have now. Camelot will, of course, be welcome to submit proposals within our guidelines to become the new operator after 2001.
I understand the thoughtful points which the noble Viscount makes about NESTA and about reaping rewards from our own skills and scientific, technical and artistic achievements. It is true that there are a number of organisations in the field, including particularly the higher education system, which already touch on the fringes of what we are trying to do with NESTA; but I believe that NESTA will be able to meet needs which other organisations cannot reach and bring together our effort in this area, as some other countries have succeeded in doing.
The final question which the noble Viscount asked was whether it would not be better to continue with the existing lottery system. I hope I have shown in my replies that what we are proposing will be an improvement which is possible because of the success of the existing lottery.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Statement made by my noble friend certainly impresses, but I regret that I cannot share his enthusiasm. The test of the lottery is being judged purely in financial terms.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether, in pursuit of its policies, new Labour looked at the social consequences of the lottery and questioned whether they were consistent with our general view of the nature of the society we are creating. We are creating a nation of gamblers, a culture which thinks that there is easy money and success to be gained by gambling and buying tickets, whereas I assume that the Labour Party's new philosophy is to encourage initiative and energy. Was any analysis made of the people who buy lottery tickets and of the social consequences for those who are accumulating poverty and debt as a result of the new habit of buying tickets in the hope of success?
1236
I believe that the nature of our society and the consequences of the lottery should be questioned before we embark on this widespread enthusiasm for getting money for nothing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's attitude towards the lottery is well known and well respected. It is a view expressed not just by him but by many sincere people who feel very profoundly that even a lottery which contributes as much as this one does to good causes is somehow immoral and an attack on the fabric of our society. I respect that view without sharing it.
My noble friend asks whether there has been research on the effect of the National Lottery upon individuals who take part in it. The cant word is "invest" but I think it right to call it gambling because that is really what it is. The answer is that research has indeed been carried on through the Office for National Statistics and on the effect on other charities in collaboration with the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. That research is continuing.
Compared to some other forms of gambling, the National Lottery is very soft gambling. In most cases it is not the kind of gambling where the return is immediate, except for the relatively minor scratch cards. The amount of expenditure on the National Lottery per household per week is of the order of £2, which is not earth-shattering when compared to something like £9 spent on cigarettes and £15 on alcohol. It is not really a destruction of the fabric of our society. On the whole, provided we keep the National Lottery to soft gambling, as it is at the moment, I do not think that my noble friend's most dramatic fears are likely to be realised.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I find the Statement made by the Minister very puzzling. If Camelot had not been a success and if the National Lottery had failed to meet the targets which the previous Conservative government had in mind for it of revenue of about £2 billion a year and perhaps £100 million or £150 million going to each of the five good causes, then there might have been good reason for change. In fact, the lottery and Camelot have exceeded all the hopes that we had when the project was started by the Conservative government four years ago. So if it ain't broke, why fix it?
My fear is that what the noble Lord has told us this afternoon is the thin end of the wedge. It is ministerial hands getting on the funds produced by the lottery in order to direct them into ideas and conceptions which are appealing to the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Health or Education. I do not blame them for that: every Secretary of State worth his salt should have his own ideas. But surely the last thing that your Lordships would wish to see is the money generated by the lottery, which was intended to go to causes such as arts, sports and heritage, which were not getting government money, being diverted into pet schemes of Ministers?
It seems to me that what we are seeing today is the first signs of the lottery being treated as another windfall tax, a means of Ministers finding additional money for

1237
their own ideas and conceptions. However good those ideas may be in themselves, they should not be funded by the lottery. I would remind the noble Lord that ministerial hands on the neck of the marvellous goose that the lottery has turned out to be could very quickly lead to the death of the goose and no more golden eggs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, made two generic comments. Perhaps I may encapsulate his arguments into the two most important points. The first was: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We acknowledge the success of the lottery and pay tribute to all who contributed to it. But the allocation of the licence to the operator for the first time was made in a very considerable spirit of insecurity. We did not know how successful the lottery would be. Camelot did not know, and Oflot did not know. Therefore, perhaps there was an undue degree of caution in the extent to which profits were allowed to be taken out of the lottery.
We have the advantage now. I acknowledge the justice of some of the noble Lord's comments. But we know much more about the success of the lottery. Nothing is secure in gambling, but at least we have experience of success and may be able to achieve a better bargain on the next occasion in four years' time when the licence is awarded. It would be foolish and irresponsible for the Government not to take advantage of that knowledge to secure the best deal for the taxpayer and, above all, for the good causes.
The noble Lord's second point concerned the pet schemes of Ministers. I recall that the first award made by the heritage lottery fund was an award of £13 million not for the acquisition of the Churchill papers and not even for the copyright of the Churchill papers, but for a certain degree of access to the Churchill papers. We must recognise that there is a great deal of public concern about the extent to which lottery funds, paid for by all sections of the population, have gone to elitist organisations. That was recognised by Lord Rothschild when he chaired the Royal Commission on gambling in the first instance in 1978.
We recognise that public concern and the fact that the public have an interest in more local, targeted, universal and popular causes than some—I shall not go further than that—of the causes to which money has been given in the past. We reflect public opinion as we expressed it in our manifesto, our policy document, and as it was recognised in the election.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if I were to take a snap show of hands, I wonder how many Members of your Lordships' House would be found to buy lottery tickets. I would be among those who do not buy them. We sit in this Chamber patting one another on the back and congratulating ourselves on the success of the National Lottery. However, I join my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe in asking whether there is anything in the White Paper that will deal with the problem of addiction to gambling. Contrary to what my noble friend the Minister said, in a supermarket on Saturday morning or just before the closing time for
1238
buying tickets, one can see young couples—sometimes, just a young mother with three children—buying not £2 worth of tickets but spending £4 or £5 on tickets and sometimes buying scratch cards as well. Is my noble friend aware of the social damage that that is doing to less well-off families who can ill afford to gamble but who are seduced by the constant promise that on Saturday night by eight o'clock they will be multimillionaires—a forlorn hope?
Finally, just as the drinks industry contributes substantial sums of money to investigations into the problem of alcoholism and just as the tobacco industry contributes substantial sums to investigations into the relationship between cancer and smoking, so, I ask, why should not the gambling industry, led by the National Lottery, contribute substantial funds to investigate the social evil of gambling?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is one of the 10 per cent. of adults who have never taken part in the National Lottery. Let me confess that I equally am an oddball in that I have not taken part. But, then, I have never done the pools, either. I have most of the vices but gambling is not one of them. In that sense, he and I are on the same side.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I hope I made the point that whatever may be the evils of gambling—I do not deny that excessive gambling in particular is very much an evil; I do not look at the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, as we had his confessions on the subject some months ago—the National Lottery, compared with some other forms of gambling, is a relatively soft form of gambling. It does not have the same immediate pay-off and the amounts of money put in from the average family in the course of a week are rather low. I cannot, however, resist the thrust of my noble friend's question about whether there should not be greater research into addiction for gambling. I shall consult on that matter and write to him.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, there is much in the Statement that I instinctively feel able to support. However, I share many of the reservations enumerated by my noble friend. Therefore, would it be possible for the Government to consider whether the House should be given an early opportunity to have a fuller debate on what is clearly a complex and large subject?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the proper answer to that question is that it is a matter for the usual channels. Personally, I would welcome such an opportunity. When the noble Viscount has had an opportunity to read the White paper he will see that its whole emphasis is on public consultation. That is why I referred to the free leaflet which will be made very widely available, with the help of Camelot, in the outlets for lottery tickets. We hope that the general public as well as Parliament will feel able to comment on the proposals in the White Paper.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. But perhaps I may associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord

1239
Ewing of Kirkford on the problems of poorer members of our society in relation to the lottery. In that sense, I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to comment on the response from the other side of the Chamber which seemed to be that the National Lottery is a success and that nothing should be done to change it. Let us consider their criteria of success. Are they saying that it is successful to take money from poor people? Are they saying that success is when rich and powerful people have the ability to determine where the lottery proceeds are spent? Is it a criterion of success that money should go in matching funds to organisations which presumably have recourse to other funds in order to match that money? Surely part of the thrust of the Government's White Paper is intended to detract from those criteria of success and use the proceeds of the National Lottery in areas that strike a much greater resonance with the ordinary people in our society.
With regard to disbursement being judged by what I describe as relatively rich and powerful people—the great and the good in our society—would not it be a better way of determining where lottery funds are disbursed to ask local councillors to judge where the money should be spent? Also, bearing in mind that every lottery ticket bought is bought in a specific geographical area and therefore in a local council area, surely we should be able to find some way of ensuring that the money spent by people in a local area goes directly back to that area and is spent in good causes within that area.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be quite impertinent of me to attempt to analyse the motivation of noble Lords opposite in putting their questions. With regard to my noble friend's questions about distribution and consultation, in the White Paper there is quite extensive coverage of the requirement to ensure that the geographical distribution of lottery receipts is in accordance with need and the recognition that there should be far more people, including local people—why not councillors as well?—involved in the way in which funds are distributed. There will also be a serious attempt to make sure that the hurdles that have to be cleared before a person can put forward a lottery fund application are as low as possible.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, will the noble Lord, who is a civilised man, refrain from the too-common current practice of amending and distorting the English language by always assuming that "élitism" is a word that describes something that is unsatisfactory and to be avoided? It can simply mean excellence in the arts, culture and history and those matters which the lottery ought to be supporting.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord's correct representation of dictionary definitions. He will notice that when I used the word "élitism", I was not describing my own reaction, but the public reaction to some of the awards that have been made.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, is the Minister able to acknowledge that Camelot, who set
1240
up the National Lottery, has been praised worldwide for the competent way in which it did so? Will he also acknowledge that the sums raised were far higher than expected? We on this side of the House will have every right to be angry if the contract is given to someone claiming to make no profit and at the end of the day the sums fall considerably lower than they are at the moment through sheer inefficiency. I hope that the Minister will not allow the contract to go to someone on those grounds alone. Camelot should be respected for its amazing achievements in launching the lottery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not only do I acknowledge the first two points made by the noble Lord, but I also acknowledged them in advance. In other words, I made those points in my speech. I acknowledged that the lottery is successful and that Camelot deserves a considerable part of the credit for that. It is an efficient operation.
That is not to say that it cannot be improved by an operator who is judged by those best qualified to judge—in this case the director general of Oflot—as being that which is most conducive to maximise the revenue for good causes. That is the fine criterion with which we shall be concerned. That may or may not mean a not-for-profit operator. The objective of maximising the return for good causes is consistent with the noble Lord's wish to have an efficient and effective lottery.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
6.3 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("in accordance with proposals set out in a White Paper to be laid before Parliament before this Act is brought into force").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15, which involves Wales, and Amendments Nos. 37 to 39, which insert certain words into both the Welsh and Scottish question.
With these amendments we return to the question of the White Paper and a pre-legislative referendum and to exactly what the relationship will be between the White Paper and the subsequent Bill: in other words, will people get what they vote for? If I decide to vote against, or, unlikely as it may be, for, the proposition in the ballot paper on 11th September, I shall do so on the basis of the White Paper. To what extent will changes be allowed? Will there be changes that take us beyond the boundary of the approval given to the White Paper so that the Government feel obliged to have a second referendum after the Bill has passed through both Houses of Parliament? The converse may also be true. Will the Government simply ignore any changes made to the Bill and say, "You have signed up to the broad detail and that is it. We are not going to ask you again"?
Amendments Nos. 5 and 15 were originally tabled by me last week in order to make sure that the White Paper was laid before Parliament before next Tuesday, when we have the Third Reading of the Bill. Those amendments are no longer needed. I understand that the White Paper is to be produced tomorrow for Wales and on Thursday for Scotland.
Having said that, and at the risk of being reprimanded by the Liberal Democrats (or even in the hope of being reprimanded by them), perhaps I may introduce today's news item. The Scotsman newspaper seems to be intent on publishing the White Paper on Wednesday. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to respond, perhaps he will tell me if there is any truth in that remark. If there is, I presume that the Government will try to bring forward the publication of the White Paper to tomorrow. I would understand if they did that.
I suffered a little over 18 years, as a Minister for part of that time, from leaks. I know how difficult leaks can be for governments. I hope that the party opposite does not complain too much about leaks because it was pretty good at cultivating them and scouring the wastepaper baskets before it came to office. Perhaps it will take a little time before I overcome my reservations about using leaks and fall to the same temptations as did noble Lords opposite and their right honourable friends.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the story is true and if the White Paper is indeed going to be leaked. If it is to be leaked by the Scotsman newspaper, who leaked it may be an interesting question. Is it a deliberate attempt by the Government to do a little bit of softening up? Is it like last week's little diversion in relation to where the assembly or parliament should sit? Rather than concentrating on the issues in the White Paper, we end up concentrating on the peripherals; for example, who leaked it? Is it a true leak? Find the mole, or something like that. I have little doubt that that could be quite good sport, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, may well be able to help the Government in their mole hunting. However, if it is true, have the Government done it deliberately? Perhaps I can have some advice in that regard.
I had hoped to say very little about Amendments Nos. 5 and 15. The object of including them on the Marshalled List has been achieved. But the other amendment, with its four different appearances, is a serious one. It pins the Government down, as did my last amendment, to what they are committing themselves to and what the Scottish and Welsh public are committing themselves to in the vote. Are the Government committing themselves to the detail that will be contained in the White Paper? We have been told that the White Paper will be detailed. Is that what we are committing ourselves to?
If there is variation in that detail, either because this place or another place makes amendments, or because the Government, when they study the matter in greater detail, discover that some things are not possible and will have to be changed, what will the position be at the end of the Bill's passage through both Houses? Will the
1242
approval—I presume it will be approval, otherwise the Bills will not move ahead—be taken as approval in such a general way that, even if the White Paper is amended, the Government will still pray in aid the two votes—one in Scotland and one in Wales—as giving them justification to carry on?
I hope that the noble Lord can address the issue of the detail in the White Paper and how firmly committed the Government are to sticking to it. If they or Parliament, or a combination of the two, decide to make major changes, or even minor but significant changes, how will the Government see the situation? Will they decide, as they ought to have done all along, to hold a post-legislative referendum; or will they continue, regardless of the changes and regardless of the breaches that have occurred, with the proposition? I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. It is important that we have further definition of the phrase that appears in the schedule,
"to consult people in Wales on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly".
We need to know exactly to what proposals they are referring.
I thought that my noble friend was rather generous in his remarks about the publication, and the timing of the publication, of the White Papers. It seems to me that if it was possible for the Government to publish the White Papers for Wales and Scotland this week, it might have been courteous to Parliament to have ensured that they were published today so that they were available for the whole of the Report stage of the Bill. I understand that the Welsh White Paper is to be published tomorrow—at least the press in Wales seems to be under that impression. I hope that it will not be produced outside this House and kept from those of us who are here to debate the Report stage this afternoon. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that when we come here tomorrow copies will be available in the Printed Paper Office so that we can be as well informed about what is in the White Paper as the Scotsman appears to be already as the result of leaks. That seems to be the very least we can ask for.
I shall return to the question of what is in the White Paper on later amendments. However, two comments appearing in the South Wales press prompt me to add something to what has already been said. We are told in the press that the White Paper is to be made widely available in Wales. We are told that a cheap copy, or a cheaper than normal copy—at £3—will be available at distribution points so that it can be easily bought by the people of Wales. We are also told that there will be a telephone hotline so that people can obtain information about what is in the White Paper. With all this information being provided, I think that the Welsh people should know whether what they are voting for is only what is in the White Paper and not something that might be significantly different.
I am also prompted to carry the argument a little further by a report that appeared extensively in the Welsh press over the weekend that, when the

1243
Prime Minister visited South Wales last week, he proceeded to inform the people of Caerphilly on two separate occasions that one of the advantages of voting for the assembly in Wales would be that decisions,
"about schools, hospitals and law and order in Wales can he taken here by the people of Wales".
On another occasion he referred to control of the police. That simply may have been ignorance by the Prime Minister about what is going to appear in the White Paper which is being published this week. It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister should go to answer public questioning in Wales and not know what is in his Government's White Paper, but I suppose it may mean that there will be a sudden change in what the Government intend to do and that they will suddenly transfer responsibility for the police and law and order.
The very fact that the Prime Minister can go to Wales and make such a substantial announcement of the intent of government, even if it was incorrect on this occasion, suggests that there may be fairly good reasons for us confining the freedom of government to act in the future by a specific reference to the White Paper; so that the people of Wales when they vote will broadly know what they are voting about and that we shall not suddenly be told when we come back with the Scotland and Wales Bill, or the Wales Bill if there are to be separate Bills, that we have to vote for anything they like to put into the Bill because the people of Wales have voted for an assembly and we are not allowed to argue about the detail. We must have some definition and, at the very least, some clear statement from the noble Lord about what the Government's intentions are.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to everything that has already been said from these Benches, which I shall not repeat—I agree with every word of it—I would ask the noble Lord whether he would consider that in one sense—because we do not have the information—the debate is premature and we may have to come back to this matter at Third Reading. I say that because a principle of the utmost importance is involved. By no stretch of the imagination could this group of amendments be considered wrecking amendments. They are amendments which are, and are intended to be, in implementation of the principle of the Bill. It is our right—furthermore to our right, it is our duty—if insufficient time has been provided to anyone inside or outside Parliament to consider measures of great importance, even if they are briefly referred to in an election manifesto, to delay by amending as is proposed in this group of amendments.
If the noble Lord would care to look at Hansard of 19th May 1993 (cols. 1787–8 of Volume 545) he might appreciate the force of what I am seeking to ask him respectfully to consider.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one brief question. I am disturbed to hear the news of the possible leak in the Scotsman on Wednesday of the Scottish White Paper. The Government had, to my mind very wisely, organised that the Welsh White Paper would come out two days early and that we would, as we urged
1244
in Committee, have a space in which the Welsh matters could be considered before the tumult of the Scottish debate began. If the Scotsman is to print this matter on Wednesday it will extinguish the very brief period in which the spotlight can be on Wales. If there is truth in this rumour, is there anything the Government can do to restore some primacy to Wales? If they have leaked the Scottish White Paper, perhaps they can leak the Welsh one tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, when I was a small child I was always taught never to believe what I read in the newspapers. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe something that I have not read in the newspapers. I do not know what will be in the Scotsman. I have had much more amusing and interesting things to do this afternoon and this evening; namely, sitting in your Lordships' House. I do not know what is in the Welsh newspapers. I have no particular interest in what may or may not be rumours. I do know, on the steadfast authority of my noble friend Lord Parry, that in one newspaper in Wales over the weekend there was a careful and considered article about me, describing me as Lord Williams of Elvel, with a photograph of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. So they seem to have got it comprehensively wrong.
This Government do not believe in leaks. We do not act on the basis of leaks. As is well known, we propose to publish the White Paper on Wales on 22nd July and that on Scotland on 24th July. That is entirely consistent—indeed, rather more generously consistent—with the undertakings which my noble friend Lord Sewel and I have given to your Lordships on a number of occasions. We promised to deliver and we have.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, observed that the Welsh people and the Scottish people are entitled broadly to know what they are voting about. I respectfully agree. That is the purpose of the White Papers. There is nothing between us on that. He specifically asked about copies of the Welsh White Paper. I can assure the House that copies of the White Paper will be available to Members of both Houses in the usual way. I hope that is helpful.
I think I have been the object of an attempted seduction—although I was asleep at the time and missed it—in wanting me to say that there would be a second referendum. My Lords, no. The first referendum, as has been said ad nauseam, is intended to be advisory and for guidance. The proposals to which the question on the referendum ballot refers are quite plainly the Government's proposals. Those proposals will be set out in the White Papers. There is no benefit in inserting a specific reference to the White Papers.
In respect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 15, they are technically incompetent because they imply that part of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act would have to come into effect and have effect before the Act itself came into force.
Obviously these are going to be important matters. The White Papers will be available. The electorate in both Wales and Scotland will come to their own

1245
conclusion, not entirely on the White Papers; but those are the broad thrust of the Government's proposals. I imagine that the electorate will listen to contributions from your Lordships' House, from the "Yes" and the "No" campaigns or sub-variants of each campaign. We want the public to come to their own conclusion. This is a device which is not common in our country's constitutional regime, but we believe it to be an important one. On that basis I believe that we are going the right way about it.
Answering hypothetical questions is arid enough at the best of times. We are putting forward our proposals for the judgment of the people of Wales and Scotland respectively. Their judgment will be advisory and is intended to guide the Government. Having listened to the voice of the people in both Scotland and Wales we shall bring forward our proposals for full scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in this short debate. I am not in the least surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that the Government do not operate on leaks. No government does that, but his party was pretty good at operating on leaks when it was in opposition. So when the position in your Lordships' House and down the corridor changes, one's view on leaks changes. I fully accept that the Government will not be very happy if there is a leak in the Scotsman, unless it is deliberate. Those are not unknown. I can see the merit in one such deliberate leak on Wednesday, but we shall wait to see. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will either be able to tell me that I should not believe what I read in the newspapers next week—I was going to say that I should not believe what I read in the Scotsman, but I might never appear in it again if I said that—or alternatively I may be able to say to the noble Lord, "Occasionally, you should believe what you read in the newspapers".
However, the point really is whether or not somehow we should tie the Government down as to how the legislation will relate to the White Paper and how closely they must follow it. I said that they should follow it, but I have no doubt that the Government will attempt to do so as best they can. But I do not believe that with a subject as complex as this issues will not arise which will mean that the Government will change their view. They will find that there are different ways to do what they want and perhaps sometimes that there are even better ways. They will want to take these matters on board, and that is the whole purpose of legislation. I am simply putting the question as to what extent the Government are going to be tied by the White Paper or to what extent they will be able to move from that. If that move is significant, however one defines "significant", should we then have a second referendum, or what?
The noble Lord said that he did not like answering hypothetical questions. If he is to be a government Minister he will have to learn that he will have to answer such questions. I shall send him some summer reading
1246
on some of the Bills of the past few Sessions where hypothetical questions from some of his noble friends formed a fair portion of the questioning of government Ministers both at Committee and Report stages. One of the problems of legislation is that one has to try to work out how it will affect people in different circumstances, and that is what we are attempting to do here.
I am grateful for at least one point of clarification. The noble Lord has not made any attempt to say otherwise, but it is interesting to have it on record that the Government's proposals, as spelt out in the preamble, are the ones in the White Paper, so that everything else that we read that comes from the Government, even their manifesto, will be subsumed by the proposals in the White Paper. As I have been invited continually to wait for the White Paper before I make up my mind one way or the other, I must now start the wait. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 6:
Page I, line 13, after ("government") insert ("or parliamentary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is something more than a probing amendment. Your Lordships will recall that we had a long debate at Committee stage about who votes in the referendum. Put simply, we can read the electoral register in the post office, the library or at our party offices. It contains two main divisions. One relates to those who are entitled to vote at parliamentary elections and the other relates to those who are entitled to vote at local government elections. The parliamentary election list, like the local government list, includes the vast majority of people who reside in Scotland and Wales. But in the parliamentary list there is added to the end of each register a number of people who are overseas and who, before they went overseas, were electors in that ward. They have applied to be considered as overseas electors. They are allowed to vote in parliamentary elections but not in local government elections. I believe I am right in saying that they are not entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament because it is assumed that if they live in Europe they will have a vote in the country in which they reside.
The local government register has two other groups added to it. Your Lordships will be particularly interested in one group. It consists of those of your Lordships who are resident in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, I am allowed, as are a number of your Lordships, to vote in local government elections in Scotland, but I am not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections. The other group, which is allowed to vote in local government elections but not parliamentary elections, comprises citizens of the European Union—other than those of the Republic of Ireland whose citizens are allowed to vote in all our elections—who have been resident in our country for six months and who have decided that they wish to apply to vote.
The Government's proposals, as they appear in the Bill, state that we should pick the local government list. I put forward an amendment at Committee stage that we

1247
should pick the parliamentary list. My argument was a simple one. I thought that those of us, including the overseas electors, who were trusted enough to vote on 1st May ought to be the ones trusted to vote in the referendum. I also suggested that perhaps that might be a reflection of people who have a deep and long-abiding interest in Scotland.
However, a robust defence was made of the right to vote, not so much of your Lordships, but of European citizens. There seemed to be a pretty single-minded determination on the part of the Government that the 12,000 EU nationals in Scotland—I do not know how many in Wales because the Government do not seem to have told us that—ought to be allowed to vote along with everyone else in Scotland and Wales and with the resident Peers. In a spirit of consensus, and approaching these matters in the spirit of wishing to find an agreed position, I accept that if the 12,000 EU nationals and the 123 resident Peers in Scotland are allowed to vote in local government elections it is perfectly right and proper that they should vote at this referendum.
I hope that in the same spirit the Government will tonight accept my amendment, which proposes that overseas voters should also be allowed to vote. There are not many of them. I doubt whether the result of the referendum will be so close in Scotland (it may be in Wales) that it will make much difference to the eventual result. I am told that in Scotland there are 1,500 overseas electors. Some of them will not vote, but I suggest that if they have gone to the trouble of putting their names on the overseas register, which is not, an easy task, they are probably interested enough in the affairs of their homeland to vote in this important referendum.
So I have brought forward here an amendment which adds to "local government" the words "or parliamentary" so that all people who are currently on the electoral register, both parliamentary and local government, will be allowed to vote. That will allow those of your Lordships who live in Wales and Scotland to take part in this momentous decision. It will allow 12,000 EU nationals in Scotland and perhaps 7,000 or so in Wales—perhaps the noble Lord can tell us the figure—to vote on the future of Scotland and Wales. It will also allow to vote that much smaller number of overseas voters who left Scotland and Wales within the past 20 years, but who have retained an interest and ensured that their names remain on the electoral register.
Perhaps my amendment is in some way defective in its drafting. I would always defer to the parliamentary draftsmen in these matters and if the amendment is defective, I should be happy for the Government to introduce an amendment which encapsulates the point that I am making. However, the Government should take on board the simple proposition that the people who are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections ought also to be entitled to vote in this referendum, just as I am taking on board the Government's point that people who are allowed to vote in local government elections, including EU nationals, should be allowed to vote in the referendum. In that spirit of consensus and so on, I very much hope to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, use the immortal words, "I think I can accept the noble Lord's amendment". I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment and I hope that we shall not be told that there will be any kind of administrative problem or delay. Not all noble Lords would remember it, but in 1945 there was an interval of three weeks between polling day and the declaration of the poll in each constituency so that service votes could be brought in from all over the world. It worked perfectly smoothly. This is a minute administrative effort compared with that. Indeed, the procedure happens anyway in parliamentary elections. I hope that the Government will realise that we owe it to those men who are serving perhaps overseas or, indeed, in this country in our Armed Forces. They should have the right to determine what is to happen.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I believe that the final thrust of his remarks relates to subsequent amendments, not the present one. The noble Lord has been dealing with the armed services, but that is not the purpose of our present amendment. The noble Lord will therefore acquit me of discourtesy if I do not deal with that particular aspect—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise and I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not at all; there are so many amendments that it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that I think that I can accept the noble Lord's assurance of "consensus and all that", which was the phrase that he used. Even the noble Lord could not continue beyond "consensus and all that".
The difference here is one of approach in principle. We believe—we have made this clear beyond doubt—that the clear criterion for deciding who should vote on the proposals should be residency in the country concerned. It is right in principle; it is workable in practice; and we have chosen the local government franchise because it most closely accords with the residency test. We do not believe that it is appropriate for an overseas elector—that is, someone who is not resident in the United Kingdom—to be entitled to a vote on a referendum concerning the arrangements for devolution to Wales and to Scotland. If overseas electors were to be included, it would mean, as my noble friend Lord Sewel pointed out on an earlier occasion, that if a Scotsman lived in Benidorm and a Scotswoman lived in Blackpool, the Scotsman living in Benidorm would be able to vote on devolution whereas the Scotswoman living in Blackpool would not. I suggest that that is not entirely intellectually consistent or coherent.
suppose that this difference of approach is not capable of being reconciled. We do not believe that overseas electors ought to be able to vote in a referendum on the constitutional arrangements for Welsh or Scottish devolution. I know that the noble

1249
Lord will not think that I am being discourteous, but I believe that the difference between us is as simple and as short as that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is making his position clear. May I ask him whether he envisages that overseas voters would be allowed to vote in the elections for the Scottish assembly, if it comes about?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not the point that we are dealing with at the moment. The noble Lord has great experience of being able to answer hypothetical questions, but I am much too young to have fallen into his bad ways.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that some of your Lordships will realise the truth of what I am about to say because if I had tried to give such an answer during our long hours on many social security Bills, "uproar" might have been a mild description of what would have happened in your Lordships' House. Indeed, "histrionics" might have been nearer the mark for the Opposition spokesperson if I had failed to answer the kind of question that I have just posed to the noble Lord.
I am disappointed because I had thought that I had found a way to accommodate the desires of the party of government to allow EU citizens (and some of your Lordships) to vote, while accepting that people appear on the parliamentary register for the perfectly good reason that they may be working overseas for our country. Of course, some of those people on the register will have retired abroad and others will be working in other operations. It seems to me that if we have allowed those people to appear on our parliamentary register, it is illogical not to allow them a vote in the referendum.
As I pointed out at Second Reading and in Committee, I have a particular interest in this because my daughter is an overseas elector in Northern Italy. She will not be able to vote in a referendum affecting the future of her country and yet an Italian waiter working in the famous icecream parlour, Nardini's in Largs, who has been resident in this country for a little while will be able to have a vote. Interestingly enough, there is such a person, although not from Bosisio Perini, where my daughter lives.
I find that arrangement fundamentally unfair, and despite, as always, the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not think that he has come any way towards meeting me, although I have come quite a long way to meet him by tabling this amendment which I believed would bridge the gap. I am sorry that the gap cannot be bridged, but I feel so strongly about this that I shall seek your Lordships' opinion.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.6) shall be agreed to?
their Lordships divided: Contends, 66; Not-Contents, 119.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
Page I. line 13, at end insert ("and members of the United Kingdom armed forces born in Scotland and their spouses who would he entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I might invite the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to submit an opinion—I believe that that is what it is called in legal terms—that I can show to my daughter as a result of the latest vote.
I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. The amendment is one that we proposed in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, expressed some sympathy with the arguments being put forward. He said that the best that he could do was to give careful consideration with his colleagues to everything that had been said. I have put down the amendment to allow him to tell us what conclusion he has come to, and, if that conclusion is unfavourable, to try to persuade us why we should accept the situation.
If we have servicemen who are Scots or Welsh who are currently based in England, they may or may not have a vote in Scotland or Wales. It all depends upon whether they made a declaration on or about 10th October last as to whether they wanted to vote where they were based—somewhere in England—or in Scotland or Wales where they had last voted or last had a residence, or at their parents' house or whatever. I gather that the position is reasonably generous so far as allowing servicemen or servicewomen to decide to vote in Scotland and Wales when they live in England.
That is fine as far as it goes. However last October none of those servicemen in England realised the consequences of their election. Many of them probably have their wives and children with them at the base from which they operate in England. For example, the Royal Scots are based at Colchester. That I understand is their home base, and so I suspect that a fair number of them have decided, over the past two or three years, to register their vote and that of their families in Colchester where they stay for the moment as they are attached to the Royal Scots and have been sent there. If the Royal Scots were in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fort George, or wherever, they would be registered there. They would be sent there. The same is true for the Navy and Air Force. Those people do not have much say over where they are sent. They can end up in England or Scotland. If they end up in Scotland, they will not have a problem. If they end up in England, they do have a problem.
The position of the Welsh regiments is more difficult because, as I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will explain in greater detail and with greater knowledge, two of the Welsh regiments are based permanently on the wrong side of the border, if I may call it that. The same problem has occurred with them for many years. Many of them probably decided to register their vote where they were based. That does not make them any less Welsh and does not take away from the fact that if they had joined the other Welsh regiment which is based in Wales they would have no problem. They would probably have registered in Wales or at their previous home, their parents' home, or wherever. A problem exists for the servicemen and servicewomen who are currently resident in England because they are acting under the instructions of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or the Army.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he give an example of any serviceman, Army, Navy or Air Force, who on 10th October 1996 knew where he would be based on 11th or 18th September 1997? That is a simple question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, servicemen do not know where they will be based in a year's time, but if they are with the Royal Scots, for example, the chances are that they will still be based at Colchester because that is their home base. If they are sent abroad there is a method by which they can vote back at home. I do not believe that the noble Lord's intervention has answered my point. I doubt whether last October any of them were aware of the consequence of where they registered their vote. They would not realise that if they did not elect to register at home in Scotland or Wales they would lose out on the vote in the referendum.
It is a difficult proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, accepted that. I understand that there may be complexities about delivering a vote in the timescale envisaged; that is, beginning now and ending on 11th September. However, that is not a timescale of my making and therefore I am not impressed by the

1253
argument that there is no time to organise a vote for the service voters who are based in and have their votes in England. The Government ought to have given that matter some thought. After all, presumably they thought about it before the election. It is all very well being sympathetic, but we want that sympathy to be translated.
I hope that, unlike the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will come forward with a positive proposal. I shall leave the matter there, but I have no doubt that the Welsh point of view will be put forward. Even more Welsh servicemen will be based outside Wales than there will be Scottish servicemen based outside Scotland, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will wish to speak about the matter. I hope that during the two weeks since the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has asked his colleagues to come forward with a solution. If it means delaying the referendum for a week or two, I would be happy to accept an amendment on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I do not intend to add a great deal to what I said in Committee, but the situation is worse in Wales than my noble friend indicated. All three Welsh regiments, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Welsh Guards, are stationed permanently outside Wales. They do not have a home base in Wales.
In Committee, the issue received support from all sides of the House. My noble friend and I deliberately used that phrase, although technically it may be incorrect. My noble friend and old political opponent Lord Parry and I found ourselves in agreement on the issue. He confirmed what was the situation when he and I were doing battle politically in Pembrokeshire—that often the forces stationed there registered there rather than at their home elsewhere. It happens that last October the Royal Welch Fusiliers were in Northern Ireland, having moved there after a gallant and noteworthy tour of Bosnia. The Royal Regiment of Wales is currently carrying out public duties in London and is stationed at Hounslow.
All three Welsh regiments face the same situation. It happens that the permanent base of the Royal Welch Fusiliers is Chepstow. It is separated from Wales only by the width of the River Wye. Therefore, its members are in the extraordinary situation of having their families in accommodation on a promontory between the River Severn and the River Wye and are separated from the Principality by a few hundred yards. Therefore, they clearly make the point that we sought to make in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a helpful and sympathetic response, but I understand from the gesticulations on the Front Bench that on this occasion he is handing over the responsibility to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I hope that that is not an indication that the message to be conveyed is bad news
1254
but that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will take the credit for the helpful announcement which I am sure we are about to receive from the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise only to mention that the point I made prematurely in respect of the previous amendment has been strengthened by the facts given by my noble friend in respect of this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively. There is a feeling among those who appreciate the situation—and many do not—that a sharp injustice is built into the Bill. That may have occurred unwittingly, but it exists. I hope that it will be possible to remedy the problem, otherwise some people will have a strong feeling of dissatisfaction.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I cannot see why some Scottish members of our Armed Forces who are prepared to fight for Monarch and country may be denied a vote in the referendum, when other Scots who do far less for their country will have a vote. Surely, Her Majesty's Government should hold our Armed Forces in slightly higher esteem.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, gave an unduly mild answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Perhaps that is not something of which he has often been accused. Most soldiers know where they will be based next year. Perhaps the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was: although they may not know where they will be posted next year, although they may have been posted to Northern Ireland or Bosnia for three months, they will remain based in their headquarters in Colchester or in Chepstow (which is on my doorstep). Surely they know where they are based and surely they remain based there.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment because our Armed Forces can be sent anywhere at short notice. In that respect, I believe that they deserve to be a special case.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the amendments seek to allow Scottish and Welsh-born servicemen and the spouses of servicemen to vote in referendums regardless of where they are registered to vote in the United Kingdom. As noble Lords will recollect, in Committee we undertook to give the matter thought, to reflect upon it and to consider our approach to service voters. We have done so, but we remain convinced that our original position was correct. I understand that that will come as a disappointment to some noble Lords opposite and therefore I consider it necessary to explain the reasons behind our judgment.
Our general approach to the business of voting in the referendums is that it should be based on the principle of residency in the country concerned. The amendment opens up our two old friends, residency and nationality. They reappear under a slightly different guise. In principle, members of the forces should be treated in the same way as any other potential voters. Accordingly, a

1255
member of the Armed Forces entitled to vote at a local government election in Scotland or Wales will be entitled to vote in the appropriate referendum.
The special circumstances of service personnel are reflected already in the provisions of the Representation of the People Act in relation to registration of voters who are members of the Armed Forces. They have a special place and that should be recognised. Members of the Armed Forces can retain, through a service declaration, their right to vote in Scotland or Wales even if they are on service elsewhere. It makes absolutely no difference whether a member of a Welsh regiment is serving in Cardiff, across the Severn or in Bosnia. If he has made his service declaration showing residence at a Welsh address, he will have a vote. No member of the Armed Forces will lose his right to vote simply because he is on duty elsewhere. Let us make that absolutely crystal clear.
There are some difficulties about the wording of the amendment. Let us look at that. The amendment refers to members of the Armed Forces "born" in Scotland or Wales. It is perfectly possible to have been born in Scotland or Wales, to have moved away at a very early age; to have been brought up in England and to have joined an English regiment; and to have no intention of returning to the country of birth. Yet, according to the amendment, that person would have a vote in the referendum. That is the important point because that person has no residential link with Scotland or Wales. The service declaration keeps open and is based on the concept of a residential link, albeit attenuated by the fact that the person is serving abroad. If we rely purely on birth, we are not maintaining that vital residential link.
As regards the problem of spouses, according to the amendment there could be a Scottish soldier born in Scotland who has a wife—for the sake of illustration—born in Japan. They may have met in Colchester. The wife has never lived in Scotland and perhaps has no intention of doing so. But the amendment would confer on that wife a right to vote in a referendum on the future Government of Scotland.
7 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if we were to begin to divide up the electorate for elections, leaving aside the referendum, on the basis of this kind of amendment and on the basis of the ethnicity or place of birth of one section of the electorate, that would give rise to real problems under Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights read with Article 14 of the convention? That is because it would give rise to racial discrimination or discrimination on the basis of ethnicity in the choice of legislature. Is the Minister aware that for the same reason, it may give rise to problems under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for that point. Noble Lords will be aware that throughout our discussions and debates on the Bill,
1256
I have stressed the need for residency and have rejected any claim on the basis of ethnicity or nationality. That is the sensible way forward.
It is not right to suggest that the referendum produces any new questions in relation to residence. For ordinary elections, it does matter where a person is registered. We have a constituency basis. It may be claimed that in a referendum, we move away from that. But it is my contention that if a serviceman has decided quite deliberately to register on the electoral register of the home where he is based rather than the one on which he would claim to be from, that is a deliberate act which has meaning. We are debasing that decision if somehow we say that it does not have meaning. He has decided in a very real sense that that is the place with which he identifies. It is not for us to second guess that decision.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a difference here? If you register for a parliamentary or local government election, that is because you believe that the result of that election may affect taxation, local and central, and many other issues where you are living at that time. But the quite separate issue here will affect the government of the country which you believe to be yours for generations to come. There is a fundamental difference. It is quite natural that people should register in the homes in which they are living currently because they are affected by what goes on locally. But we are now dealing with a totally different situation.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I cannot accept the point which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, makes. A serviceman who comes from Scotland or Wales and is posted somewhere else—for example, Colchester—and then makes a decision about whether to exercise the vote in Scotland, Wales or Colchester, faced, in a general election, with campaigns from the parties affecting the whole of the country, he makes the decision in relation to the place with which he identifies. That must be respected and, as I said, I do not think we should second guess that.
To suggest that service voters are somehow put at a disadvantage because they did not realise last October that there would be a referendum would always be wrong. We must recognise that people take decisions and that they are meaningful to them. We accept that service personnel are a special case, so we make possible the service declaration which they exercise. If that declaration produces a vote in Scotland or Wales, then that is absolutely reasonable and fair. Nobody would seek to deny a voter on that basis. But if they have decided deliberately to identify with some other part of the country, equally we must accept that decision. I hope that on that basis it will be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I regret to say that that was just about as thin an argument as that used in Committee. I do not believe that servicemen make a decision in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. If the serviceman had not been posted to Colchester or wherever else and had been posted instead

1257
to Scotland or Wales, there would be no problem. Therefore, he is disadvantaged because of a posting that he has had from his military superiors. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would like to intervene and say whether that contravenes one of those conventions in which the noble Lord is so interested. It seems to me that it is difficult for that serviceman to say that he has been treated fairly because he has been posted out of the area where he would have been able to vote in the referendum, whichever way he had decided to exercise his declaration.
The noble Lord's argument would be conclusive, and I would withdraw the amendment, if we were talking about a separate register being drawn up specifically for the referendum so that every serviceman knew what would be the result of his declaration. The fact is that when the serviceman makes that declaration, by and large, he makes it for parliamentary elections. He knows that wherever he is in the UK, there will be a parliamentary election on the same day and he will be able to vote for the same group of parties. I accept that there may be nationalists in Wales and Scotland who make some difference to that but, by and large, he will be able to vote for the same group of parties. Therefore, whether he is in Colchester, Glasgow, Chepstow or Cardiff does not make nearly as much difference as it does in relation to this referendum.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for courteously giving way. Can he tell the House what electoral register there is in the United Kingdom which has the place where one is born?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to that point in a moment, although I do not believe that it is relevant to the point I am trying to make. The argument of the Government Front Bench about the referendum would be valid if a register was being created deliberately with a view to the referendum or if the register created on 10th October last had stated quite clearly:
"Whether you decide to register your vote, either at your base in Chepstow or Colchester, or to use the election to register your vote in Scotland, will decide whether or not you can vote in the referendum".
In that case, the noble Lord would have a reasonable argument against me. However, he has not. The only argument he has is to say that you can hardly say just, "Born in Scotland".
If the noble Lord does not like those words, I could make a few more suggestions to him. After all, he represents the Government, with all the power of the Civil Service and the draftsmen at his disposal. What about the phrase, "Had joined the forces from a Scottish address"? Alternatively, what about, "Had been registered at any time on a Scottish register"? That would take away the obsession that the noble Lord and his friend have about not wanting to consider where a person is born. If that is the only objection, I think that I can easily withdraw the amendment on the assurance that the Government will come forward with another one written along the lines of, "Joining from a Scottish
1258
address". Indeed, the latter seems to me to be a very good phrase, because chances are the person may have been resident in Scotland for his or her lifetime.
Lord Parry: My Lords, given my general sympathy for at least two-thirds of the argument put forward, which I expressed on the last occasion, will the noble Lord accept that there is another difficulty with the amendment; namely, that a great number—and a very welcome number—in the Welsh regiments are in fact Englishmen who have never lived in either Wales or Scotland, or, indeed, registered themselves there? Therefore, the total number involved is nothing like the number about which we seem to be concerning ourselves.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I accept that point. Indeed, some members of the Scottish and Welsh regiments will not have been born in Scotland or Wales and will not in fact have joined from a Scottish or Welsh address and, therefore, will not have been registered at any time on a Scottish or Welsh register—my three options. I am not bothered about them; they are obviously not my concern. I am concerned with people who, if they had not been in the forces or had not been transferred by the military to a base in England, would be in Scotland and allowed to vote. That is a self-evident proposition.
It may not be exactly what my amendment says, but I am an open-minded person. I have already indicated that if the Government wish to come forward with an alternative to my amendment which actually does what I and other noble Lords want, I would be happy to withdraw it. However, I have learned from fairly hitter experience during the course of the Bill's proceedings that there is not much point to that. Unless you are offering the Government something really good in return—like, for example, a week longer in the Recess—you have absolutely no chance of getting your argument or your amendment accepted.
I understand the point that the Government Front Bench are making about being born in Scotland. Indeed, a person could have been born in Scotland, left the next day and joined a Scottish regiment after some time. However, I think that "Joining from a Scottish address" is a fairly simple proposition. The military will have all these records. I know many young men and women who joined from their Scottish addresses. Alternatively, if they want to say that such people must have registered at some time, we could have, "Registered on a Scottish register", though I would he less happy about that because some people could join at such an early age that they would never have the opportunity to be registered at their original home address in Scotland or Wales. We could get round the problem if there was a particular determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do so, but I distinctly get the impression that they do not understand or sympathise with the argument.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord invited me earlier to intervene. There is an aspect to his argument which puzzles me. Can he say whether he accepts that it is objectionable, as the amendment

1259
stands, to seek to draw a distinction between those who are born in Scotland and those who are not? Does he accept that that is objectionable because it is based upon place of birth or ethnicity and that, if one were to differentiate on that basis, it might well involve discrimination in breach of basic British principles, as well as those of international human rights law?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord speak on a number of occasions about international human rights issues, on which I know he is an acknowledged expert. However, sometimes a little dribble of common sense has to come into such matters. I am not talking about ethnicity; indeed, a person can be born somewhere and not actually be the ethnic of where he or she was born. I am attempting to address an issue which involves servicemen. It is possible that I am wrong about the "born" aspect, because someone could have left the next day. I am not too worried about whether the wording would offend some of the courts in which the noble Lord appears. Indeed, it is much more important to get the matter right so far as concerns people in this country who think that they ought to be able to vote.
I have in mind young men and women who, if they had been posted in Scotland, would perhaps have made a decision to be registered at their home base in Scotland or Wales or indeed may have decided to go back to their old home to be registered. However, when given that choice in England, those young people did not realise the serious significance of what they were doing and what would happen to them this September; namely, that they would find that their colleagues still based in Scotland and Wales would have a vote in the referendum but that they, because they decided to register in Colchester or Chepstow (where they reckoned they would be stationed for some little time) instead of registering in Scotland and Wales, would not.
I must be honest and consistent as I divided your Lordships' House on the question of the overseas voters. Frankly, the Government's case as regards the overseas voters is only marginally better than it is for the servicemen. By and large, the overseas voters have made the decision to go overseas, whereas, although the servicemen made a decision to join up, they made no decision about where they would be based in the UK; indeed, that was decided for them. Therefore, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Biddulph, L.

Cadman, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Brentford, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Burnham, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

1260

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Forbes, L.

Pender, L.

Gray, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rotherwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kenilworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lawrence, L.

Sharples, B

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stewartby, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Marlesford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weir, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wharton, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Judd, L.

Blyth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Carlisle, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McCarthy, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNally, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Eatwell, L.

Parry, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon. B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

1261

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thurso, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

7.25 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert
("But an alteration in a register of electors under section 11(1) or (2) or 57 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (correction of registers and registration appeals) shall not have effect for the purposes of the referendum unless it is made before the start of the period of eleven days ending with the date of the referendum.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("local government area") and insert ("parliamentary constituency").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a topic that we missed at Committee stage. We can address it quickly. Essentially the counts after the referendums in Scotland and Wales are to be based on local government areas. My amendment seeks to change that to parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, and in Wales to change the criterion from county or county borough to parliamentary constituencies. I propose that in Scotland and Wales the counts should be based on parliamentary constituencies.
I understand that in 1975 the original idea as regards the European Union referendum was to have a central count. The reason for that was that the then governing party was a little frightened that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might deliver different verdicts to England which could be embarrassing. Constituency counts might be even more embarrassing to individual Members of Parliament whose views turned out to be contrary to those of their constituents. Eventually it was decided to base the count on local government areas.
In 1979 the referendums were again based on local government areas in the regions and islands of Scotland and in the counties and county boroughs of Wales. Now the Government propose that the forthcoming referendums should be based on local government areas. It is interesting that the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums stated,
"If the practice in general elections is applied to referendums, counting should be organised on a constituency basis. The machinery is well known and there are people already available who have experience of electoral procedure".
However, it also states—I mention this in case the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is about to quote it—
"On the other hand, the precedents of the 1975 and 1979 county-based counting suggest that for political reasons a constituency count may be inappropriate in a nationwide referendum".
I do not believe that a constituency count can ever be inappropriate. After all, we decide parliamentary elections in this country on a constituency count.
1262
I suspect that may change at the next elections to the European Parliament where the proportional representation system will probably remove the constituency base. Frankly, I am not a supporter of that move, but it looks as if the Government wish to move in that direction. No doubt, given their majority in another place, they will succeed in persuading their colleagues to vote for that.
I understand the reasons for the precedents of 1975 and 1979. As I said, the 1975 precedent sought to achieve a kind of balance between holding a countrywide count and avoiding the embarrassment of constituency MPs knowing that their constituents' views differed from their own. I have no desire to shield Members of the other place from embarrassment in these matters; indeed, I wish actively to encourage such embarrassment. For that reason I believe that a count based on parliamentary constituencies would be an excellent idea.
In the 1979 referendum some parts of the country which clearly voted "No" caused great embarrassment to their sitting Members. That embarrassment will arise at least in certain parts of Scotland—I do not know about Wales—where some of the council areas are small enough to be contained in one constituency. However, at present, thinking on my feet, I can think of few of those. The majority of counts will be across more than one constituency. Constituency representation has served this country well over many decades, indeed centuries. It is the sensible way to do the count. People who operate counts are used to doing so on a constituency basis. I commend my amendment to the Government. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 12 with which Amendment No. 9 is grouped. I believe that Amendment No. 12 is more important than Amendment No. 9.
Judging by what happened 18 years ago, the Orcadians and the Shetlanders had no wish to be governed directly by Edinburgh; and the people of the Borders had no wish to be governed indirectly by Glasgow. It is important for the stability of any semi self-governing Scotland, if one comes about, that we know whether the people living at either extremity of Scotland are of a like mind today. Unless Amendment No. 12, or something like it, is accepted, that will not be possible.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps he will clarify a point. If my memory serves me right, last time, in Wales certainly, if the count was not by constituency it was by areas. I remember exactly to what extent Gwynedd voted against the assembly. If I am right, why has the provision been changed?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, surely a referendum is a measure of the opinion of the entire group, namely the nation. The opinion of the constituent

1263
power of the group does not matter in so far as it contributes towards the totality. The amendment is surely frivolous.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I would not have spoken on the amendment, but I am provoked by the last intervention. It is a matter of extreme importance and considerable significance, in particular in a country like Wales where 1.75 million of the population of 2.5 million live in a concentrated area of south-east Wales, to know how the individual constituencies of mid-Wales, west Wales and north Wales voted last time. It was so important that during debate at Committee stage of the Bill a number of noble Lords on the same side of the House as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, spent a good deal of time commenting on the embarrassment that they felt when their constituents so clearly differed from them on the issue. A number of noble Lords commented that they had voted yes in the campaign and discovered that they did so with no support from their constituents.
We are dealing with parliamentary democracy. On this occasion we are dealing not with a post-legislative but pre-legislative referendum. When a Bill comes before this House with the proposals for government, it is of extraordinary importance to know how different parts of the country voted, their views, and the balance of opinion. It is important that Members of Parliament who will vote on the Bill should know the views of constituents.
Any Member of Parliament is entitled to form a judgment and to vote against the views and wishes of his constituents. However, most Members of Parliament are careful to consider their options if they discover—as occurred last time in Wales—that a majority of four or five to one in their constituency is against them. The Secretary of State of the day was forced to recognise on that occasion that if an elephant appeared in one's back garden one could not fail to recognise it. It is extremely important that if an elephant were to appear in any hack garden on this occasion it should be clearly recognised, and that Members of Parliament in another place should understand how powerful that elephant is and what it is likely to do in trampling the undergrowth if they go against its wishes. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Lord may be an elephant trampling over a back garden. He has done it often in his career here. But the other side of the House has consistently confused parliamentary elections and traditions with a referendum, which is quite different. The amendment is frivolous. It was most ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with his normal wit and frivolity.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder whether I can introduce a calming note. I believe that I can give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which will meet his legitimate interest. I shall be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The purpose is to alter the basis of counting from local government areas to parliamentary constituencies. We have debated at some
1264
length the Government's reasons for choosing the local government register of electors. That is why we believe respectfully that it makes more sense to do the counting in the way we suggest.
However, I can say this. We expect that the returning officers for the referendums will be the same people who are returning officers for parliamentary elections. If the count is done by local government area, the process is actually made simpler; otherwise a returning officer could have to cover several separate counts.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 23 were the objects of questions from the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Stanley of Alderley, and of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The amendments require that the local results be publicly certified by the chief counting officer at the end of each local count. This is in addition to the national results that he is already required to certify and in addition to the duty on local counting officers to certify the results for their area. We have no intention of suppressing publication of the certificates of the individual counting officers or to prevent them from making a public announcement of the results. The draft Orders in Council clearly envisage local announcements being made.
The results have a limited meaning in isolation—but they have a meaning. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Taken together, they will make up the national result which is ultimately the only decision which determines whether we have a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. There will be understandable local and probable national interest, I agree, in individual local results. We have no intention of preventing that disclosure.
There is no need to require the chief counting officer to certify the local results as well as the national results. There is no practical utility in the effect. The local results will be certified and announced by the local counting officers. To require the same results to be certified again by the chief counting officer is unnecessary and probably inappropriate because he will not have been present at those counts. We would expect that the chief counting officer will publicly report the local results as they become available before announcing and certifying the grand totals. These are to be major events in our constitutional life. We believe that public announcement of local and national results is a part of the process upon which we are embarked.
I hope, therefore, that I have been able to satisfy the concerns, which I readily understand, expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell. I hope that my assurances about our thinking and the way in which we imagine things will continue have been satisfactory.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for confirming and putting on the record that the returning officer responsible for each individual local count will make a public announcement at the end of that count of the result of the referendum in his or her area. That is good and I am delighted about it. I did not think that the Government would propose

1265
otherwise, but it is nice to have it on the record—in case my suspicious mind of earlier today reasserts itself.
I thought that there was an interesting contrast between the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, admired seeing his country estate on television over the past four days in most magnificent weather.
Lord Howie of Troon: I was there in person.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Lord was there in person, even better. He suggests that the referendum is the opinion of the whole nation. His argument would have held more water if this were a post-legislative referendum, if the referendum were mandatory and made the decision of the whole of Scotland and Wales.
There has been much debate about the nature of the referendum and what the result signifies. I suspect that that question will arise again shortly. Time and again we have been told that this is an advisory referendum. Whom will it advise? It will advise Parliament. Do Members of Parliament want the advice to be on the basis of, let us say, Glasgow Members knowing only how the whole of Glasgow voted, whereas the Member for Orkney and Shetland will know exactly how his constituency voted. He will therefore have received direct advice about how his electorate feel and also about how the whole population feel. If the referendum is to be advisory, surely it is an important piece of advice for Members of another place, who have then to decide when and to what extent they will proceed with the Bill.
This is an important point. I am sorry that the Government will not take it further. There will be a great deal of speculation about the result in each constituency, drawn from the result in each area. In some areas it will be fairly easy to reach a decision. Last time, the views of voters in two or three areas of Scotland represented at the time by fervent Liberals, deeply in favour of the referendum, turned out to be totally at variance with the views of their Members of Parliament, much to the embarrassment of those Members. As I said, I am not in the business of stopping Members being embarrassed, and I am sorry that the Government will not accept this modest amendment in order to take the count by parliamentary constituency. However, I accept that the Government have kept their troops here in considerable numbers in order to prevent my winning any further Divisions. Safe in that knowledge, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel moved Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, after ("with") insert ("paragraph 11 of Schedule (Conduct of the referendums, &c.) and").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("and
(c) the proportion of the total eligible electorate represented by the total votes cast for each proposition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 and 22 in my name are to a considerable extent paving amendments for the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Renton.
These amendments return briefly to the question related to the point I have just made about the referendum being advisory; namely, how one interprets the results. I said at Second Reading and in Committee—though I do not think the Government believed me so I shall say it again—that, looking at referendums in general and those that are to be held over the next four years and nine months, we ought to address the proposition: how do we judge the result? At the risk of repeating myself, I pose the question only because I have never received a satisfactory answer. If the level of turnout is down to that for a local election on a wet day—30 per cent. to 35 per cent. —even if the proposition wins by a vote or two, is that sufficient? I have never received an answer. I fully accept that in higher (general election) turnouts a simple majority is more than acceptable. In the amendment I put forward I proposed a cut-off point of 60 per cent. As the turnout goes down, we do have to ask how valid the referendum then is as an instrument for changing the constitution or whatever has been the subject of the question.
One of the reasons for my two amendments is that I want the returning officer, at the end of the count, in addition to doing all the things just discussed, to announce what was the proportion of the total electorate who voted in favour of each proposition. That allows my noble friends to move their amendment, which I shall not intrude upon other than to say that, although the amendment may well take a broad-brush approach, I hope that they will argue that the Government ought to address this issue.
I know that the Government will tell the House that, so far as this referendum goes, they are confident of a large turnout in Scotland. I rather gather that some journalists are beginning to doubt that confidence and say that the Scottish Office is beginning to worry about the turnout. I am sure that the same must be true in Wales, where, according to opinion polls, enthusiasm is markedly less than it is in Scotland. We recall the result in Wales at the last election.
It is not just a matter of this referendum. I hope that the Minister in replying will go a little beyond that. If a referendum is held on a mayor for London, on PR or a number of other difficult issues, and if we begin, as I believe we inevitably shall, to have referendums on issues that are more about morality than constitutional matters and in which party politics does not play the same part, the question will have to he addressed as to what constitutes a reasonable majority. That becomes very important in relation to a post-legislative referendum; it is equally important with a pre-legislative referendum.
I therefore hope that the Government will give some more philosophical thought to the result of referendums in general without feeling that they are in some way weakening their position in relation to the referendum in September over which they appear to be so concerned. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, invites us to consider the matter on principle. In states which have a written constitution such as Australia or New Zealand, there are provisions within that written constitution for a certain proportion to count when a referendum is held. In Australia, for the constitution to be changed, 50 per cent. of the votes are required in a majority of states. In New Zealand it is 60 per cent. of the votes cast to change the written constitution.
In this country, I should have thought that noble Lords who sit on the official Opposition Benches are supporters of the unwritten constitution. The advantages of the unwritten constitution are said to lie in its flexibility. When one examines the way in which the constitution has operated over the years where referendums are concerned, one looks for precedent. The important precedent, the one that effected the greatest constitutional change in this century, was the 1975 EC referendum, when a simple majority sufficed. That is the precedent upon which referenda in this country should be based until we have a written constitution where matters can be formally set out.
The percentages that were written into the Wales and Scotland Bills in 1979 for the purposes of that referendum were not based on principle. They were included not as a matter of government policy but halfway through consideration of the Bill, in order to get it through the Houses considering the Bills at that time. It was not a matter of principle. If we are to retain our belief in a flexible constitution, then we should go by the precedent of the 1975 referendum—namely, a simple majority: one vote is enough.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene in this debate, but I have been provoked by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I vividly remember the 1975 referendum. I took a minor role in it myself as a then Member of Parliament. That was a post-legislative referendum. Indeed, it took place about two or three years after a prolonged analysis during the passage of the Bill which led to this country's accession to the European Community.
This referendum is pre-legislative. We are told that it is advisory. In other words, the Government are rather making things up as they go along. I do not believe there is any respectable precedent for this. In this instance the House should therefore not attach any weight to a linkage between this referendum and that undertaken in 1975.
I am led on by the powerful intervention from this Front Bench. I asked a question of the noble Lord speaking for the Government at Committee stage, to which I received no answer. Is the House to understand
1268
that, whatever the size of the majority—if there is a majority—whatever the number of people who turn out to vote, the Government will proceed with a legislative measure to introduce devolution in Scotland and Wales? I am not asking the noble Lord speaking for the Government to say precisely what the figure is; I have altered the question slightly: are we to understand that, whatever the size of the majority, whatever the turnout, the Government will still wish to proceed with their legislation to introduce devolution in Scotland and Wales?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as my noble friend said, my Amendment No. 35 is grouped with this amendment and is possibly the substantive one that the noble Lord will wish to destroy when he comes to reply.
The purpose of my amendment is to explain and clarify to the electorate what they will be voting for in the referendum. They may think that when I cast my vote I am voting for or against a Welsh assembly—I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I refer particularly to Wales as I have little knowledge of Scotland—and that if there is a simple majority for either "Yes" or "No" that is the end of the matter.
As I read the Government's replies in Committee and the replies and remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on Amendment No. 5 this afternoon, nothing could be further from the truth. In the end—I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—it will be Parliament that makes the final decision. In fact, it will not be Parliament at all which decides but the elective dictatorship that appears not to listen to Parliament. I see no reason to believe that that dictatorship will necessarily listen to the electorate—until, of course, nearer the next election.
Be that as it may, I hope to persuade the Government that my amendment is helpful, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers used to say when we were last in Opposition. The Government Front Bench have the advantage of youth and may not remember that sad but short lived period.
As I said at Second Reading, it would have been much wiser, and certainly more honest, if the Government had chosen to explain the full details of what an assembly might or might not do by holding the referendum after the passing of the Bill. My amendment goes a small way towards warning the electorate that their opinion may possibly not count.
The two amendments are designed to protect the electorate from being misled and deceived; not only that, they will encourage the electorate to vote, contrary to what the noble Lord said. Under subsection (a) of my amendment, if less than 35 per cent. of the electorate vote, regardless of the majority, the vote will be decided in the negative; but under subsection (b) of my amendment, if more than 35 per cent. and less than 50 per cent. of the electorate vote, the matter will be undecided. I have to admit that in the latter case I would have proposed a further referendum after the passing of the devolution Bill, when the full details of the duties of the assembly would have been spelled out. But that was outside the scope of the Long Title. Suffice it to say that

1269
I am sure that the Government would wish to consider the matter carefully and perhaps considerably amend the White Paper should less than 50 per cent. of the electorate vote.
I accept that the Government may not wish to accept my 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. figures, in which case I should like to know what figures they suggest. After all, they are the Government now and must have a minimum figure in mind which they should declare to the electorate. A determination to go ahead with an assembly if less than 35 per cent. of the electorate vote would show a total disregard for the 65 per cent. that are content with the present situation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, is going to get upset, but perhaps I may finish so that he can get more upset.
The Government are determined to push through this legislation to their party's political advantage, in that any Welsh assembly will always be dominated by South Wales, a Labour Party stronghold. Pity poor North Wales and Plaid Cymru.
I accept that my amendment does not overrule the Labour Party's promise to decide on a simple majority. However, let me put two extreme cases. If only 10 per cent. of the electorate voted, with 51 per cent. in favour, would the Government really go ahead with a Welsh assembly? If 90 per cent. of the electorate voted, with 51 per cent. in favour, I presume that the Government would consider—as indeed I would—that vote sufficient to proceed with an assembly? There must be a middle, sensible figure which, if they are to be seen to be responsible, the Government should spell out to the electorate before we go to the polls.
In passing, I would have thought that my amendment would appeal to the Liberal Democrat Party, who I understand believe a referendum to be totally unnecessary. Maybe I have misunderstood them.
The fact that I am personally extremely doubtful about a lot of chattering councillors in Cardiff deciding on my future in North Wales is incidental to the amendment. I hope that the Government will give me and the electorate a helpful answer and not say that my amendment is otiose—a horrible word—or that it poses a hypothetical question. Everyone must accept that it is essential to prepare and declare a contingency plan in case something such as I have described happens.
Lord Parry: My Lords, having lived in Wales all my life and never lived anywhere else, I share some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I think though that he has gone far into the realms of conjecturing about situations that will never arise.
Those of us who took part in the earlier referendum in respect of an assembly for Wales were massively disappointed with the result. But it was nothing like my personal disappointment with the campaign on which it was based, because it was virtually non-existent. On this occasion we have a well organised campaign already springing up in Wales, even for the "No" vote. The campaign is already under way. It will be well co-ordinated and well staffed, and I am certain that the
1270
result will be a very good turn-out, probably as high as any turn-out in a general election. I see no reason to go into these difficulties. Having been born in south-west Wales, I certainly do not think the noble Lord need be afraid of the citizens to the south.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned that the Liberal Democrats did not regard a referendum on this issue as being necessary. He is absolutely right. However, the Government have undertaken to have one. The reason why I very much doubt the value of referendums is that they are usually the sign of a weak government. This is not a weak government; they had a large vote and have a very large majority. Nevertheless, they had a minority of the vote in the country—44 per cent. of the popular vote, I think. Yet throughout our history one has been sufficient for a majority, as the late Lord Wilson said, and I have never known a Conservative to disagree with that.
The truth is that we take the most vital decisions on the result of an election in which often the majority of the people are against the Government. That has never been an impediment to government in this country. But when there is an issue such as this, thresholds are required. Why? There is not a case for it. If people are not inclined to vote because they are indifferent and do not care, why should they be counted as negative votes? That is the effect of the threshold, however it is dressed up.
It seems to me that there is little justification for that argument. Indeed, I believe that referendums altogether, save in quite exceptional circumstances, are a very bad thing. They are bad for democracy. Anyone who knows the history of the Weimar Republic before Hitler came to power knows how that weak government eventually was slaughtered as a result of their own referendums. Hitler, indeed, used them after he came into power to demonstrate that he had popular support.
However, as we are to have a referendum, I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said. He does not need to fear domination by South Wales. As a boy I was brought up in North Wales. I remember very few students—I knew one—who went to Cardiff to study at the university. Cardiff was regarded as a coal centre in Wales. From the moment that it became a capital city, to a large extent it meant that Wales was transformed. From all parts of Wales the percentage of students who now go to the university at Cardiff and the number of schoolchildren who visit the folk museum there and so on are increasing all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, frowns. But no government have spent sufficiently on communications in Wales. There is a capital in the south and it is time that there was a serious attempt to improve the communications.
That apart, we are not living 40 or 50 years ago but in the modern age. The younger generation are much more in favour of local control over local affairs. This will be the first democratically-elected assembly in Wales in history and that means a great deal.
8 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, whom I have known for many years. I like referendums. I was vaguely under the impression that the Greek city states were governed by a series of referenda, as they called them in those days. It seemed to work quite well. I know that the electorate was very limited, but that is not the point.
I shall make three points extremely briefly because I do not wish to disturb my noble friends on the Front Bench who do not want to be kept up all night. First, I can give a certain amount of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The whole of this debate has indicated that he is right to say that there ought to be a general law on referendums. It cannot be achieved in time for this set of referendums but I feel that the Government should put their mind to working out a set of arrangements for referendums in the future, of which I sincerely hope we have a great many. I am happy to say that I agree with the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, although he probably wants fewer than I do.
My other two points are very simple. There has been a great deal of discussion in our general debates about pre-legislative referendums, as though we had never had a referendum before. There was a referendum on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, which had nothing whatever to do with legislation and which had entirely to do with opinion. It seems to me that the referendums now proposed have to do with opinion related to self-government or home rule of some kind, however limited it might be. I leave the matter there.
I have raised my last point before in this House and it was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson; namely, the proportion of votes. There is no way in which an abstentionist should be counted. If he abstains, he has resigned from the competition. He is not in it. He has totally abstained—he is TT, so to speak. He does not count at all. He has taken himself out of the argument and therefore has resigned. Since he has resigned, he can and ought to be forgotten. There is no point in trifling. One can only count those who have voted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is speaking on behalf of the Scots. I do not feel that he understands the Welsh character.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have never heard of a Welsh total abstentionist.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 11 and 22 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I admit that when I first saw the amendments I had to start thinking about their purpose. I came to the conclusion that it was exactly the purpose explained to us by the noble Lord; that is to say, they are Trojan horses. They are just there to let through the threshold amendment that follows. I should have realised that such a distinguished mathematician as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not
1272
need to have the counting officer use his own calculator to come up with the figures on turn-out and that it was not some kind of academic treatise for which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wanted the data. It was, in fact—let us be generous—a slightly more Machiavellian purpose that he had in mind.
But the amendments highlight one issue: the importance of distinguishing between turn-out and the eligible electorate. Turn-out is generally taken to be those voting as a proportion of those on the electoral register, which is a familiar concept. The eligible electorate is a little different, which, if we pause and reflect for a moment, becomes absolutely clear. On the register there are names of people who have died, people who have not reached voting age by the time the event takes place and some people who are registered twice but only have the right to vote once. Also, in this context and particularly in parts of Scotland, it is important to remember that there are those whose religious beliefs prevent them from voting. So, the eligible electorate is a slightly difficult animal to define. If we use proportions in terms of the eligible electorate, we get into very deep and complicated waters, if deep waters can be complicated.
Amendment No. 35 takes me back to Committee stage and the debate on thresholds, when we heard about the tartan sliding scale of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I forget how many arbitrary cut-off points the scale had but there were quite a number. The argument was advanced that it was a sophisticated, fair and reasonable way forward. But it was not fair, reasonable and a way forward that appealed to us; nor would it appeal to the people of Scotland and Wales. Now the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Renton, have produced their own thresholds. The dark ages have dawned again. Rather than making progress in the sophistication of thresholds, there is a very crude approach which states that there has to be a 50 per cent. vote before the measure is passed; and if between 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the eligible electorate vote, the matter should be undecided. That is a novel idea in itself. If under 35 per cent. of the eligible electorate—however defined—vote, it falls.
Let us pause for a moment and think what the proposition was that was put before the people in the general election. The manifesto upon which the Government secured their majority; the manifesto that secured an overwhelming majority in both Scotland and Wales, put the simple proposition that the people endorsed as follows:
"A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will he the majority required".
That is absolutely plain; absolutely straightforward; it is understandable, simple and democratic. That is the way we should proceed. We put our proposals to the people in Scotland and Wales. We invite them to make a judgment. We count the votes. If there is a majority in favour, then the proposition is carried. If there is not a

1273
majority of those voting in favour, then the proposition is defeated. We are not going to have this matter settled by those who remain on their backsides.
Lord Rees: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he may recall that I posed this same question both during Committee stage and this evening. With his habitual courtesy I have no doubt that he will wish to answer it. Will he say simply that whatever the size of the majority, whatever the size of the turnout in Scotland and Wales, if there is a "yes" vote the Government will proceed with devolution legislation?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thought I had made the Government's position clear by reading out the passage from the manifesto where it says,
"A simple majority of those voting".
Indeed, in this case, in terms of the Government's position, one is enough.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, to sum it up, the Government do not care what the turn-out is. It is not something that bothers them one way or the other. I am sorry that we have not been able to tempt government Ministers away from their narrow briefs into a wider consideration of the question I posed. Not only in relation to this referendum—I accept what is in the Government's manifesto, I have heard it often enough—but also in relation to other referendums, it would be interesting to hear what noble Lords felt about the general proposition in regard to turn-outs and majorities.
I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, recruited to my view that we need a generic referendum Bill. That is one of the questions which may or may not be addressed in a generic referendum Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, but not tonight.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have no intention of even beginning it tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked why fresh rules were required. I commend him to the Marshalled List and to the amendments tabled by the Government. He will there see detailed rules, and they are required because a referendum is quite a new animal. It does not have any legislative provision. It therefore has to ride piggyback, so to speak, on the Representation of the People Act, which is designed for parliamentary and local elections.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, does not see that there is a huge difference between a referendum, which is a one-off question with a one-off answer, and a parliamentary or local government election, where people are electing a government or a local authority to deal across a whole range of issues, then nothing I can say tonight will ever manage to persuade him of that difference. It is self-evident to me that there is a huge difference.
1274
However, that is not the proposition, though it is related to it. It is because it is different that we ought to address the problem. I am sorry that government Ministers have not even begun to turn their attention to the wider question: if we are to have lots of referendums, what are we going to do—if anything—about turn-out and majority? I have said to the Government before that, if we have lots of referendums and we come to one where there is a low turn-out and only a bare majority of a couple of people, should the Government then say, "We are going to ignore it because people do not feel strongly about it", they will have real trouble from the people who thought that they had won. I remind the noble Lord of all the people who thought that they had won in 1979. They have borne it girning in their souls ever since; ad nauseam, despite the fact that they made the rules. They were the people who told the people of Scotland, "If you want to vote no, you do not have to bother turning out". I gave them an answer to that in my formula. If a formula had been accepted rather than a table, we would have got rid of the cliff edges.
Clearly we are not going to make progress on this matter. I am sorry that the attempts of my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Rees failed to persuade the Government to address this proposition in general terms. Does any old turn-out count? Clearly, any old turn-out counts. If only 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the people of Wales turn out, the Government will be happy with that.
I will only say that those of us who want a resounding "No" for Scotland and Wales will redouble our efforts to make sure that people realise the significance of their votes and what damage may be done to both our countries. We are not going to make any more progress on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 5. at end insert—
("() An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.").
Clause 2 [Referendum in Wales]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order").
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

The Homeless: Health Care
8.18 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaffrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there is an appropriate level of health care for the homeless.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, since there will be no right of reply after the Minister has spoken. I should like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have put their names down to speak. The range of their interests represented means that we shall have a profitable review of the subject.
I am sure that your Lordships look forward to hearing my noble friend Lady Emerton making her maiden speech. We have been professional colleagues in nursing over many years and her experience now as chairman of the Brighton Health Care NHS Trust and as a chief officer of St. John Ambulance equip her to speak with authority on the topic we have before us this evening.
I also look forward to hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I believe that this could be the last time in which he will take part in the proceedings of the House, though we are delighted that he will be with us for the whole of this week reading prayers. I can think of no one more suited to contribute to our proceedings this evening. He has been a prophet to the Church in his defence of the poor and disadvantaged. He has never allowed us to forget our obligation to show a "bias to the poor" and we look forward to hearing him.
The links between homelessness and health are complex. A report from the South Manchester Health Authority in 1993 stated:
"The causes of homelessness are largely rooted in public housing, employment and income policies. The main route for improving the health of homeless people lies therefore in improving their prospects for housing, work and adequate benefits".
The BMA has stated:
"Tackling homelessness should be a major priority for social policy on health grounds".
In a Written Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in 1995 about the poor diet of the homeless, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated that five government departments, including the Department of Health, were involved in the future of the rough sleepers initiative. It is a complex area.
The present Government have expressed their determination to reform social policies and this Unstarred Question seeks to probe their intention to provide and to integrate health care policies and social policies for homeless people. The Help the Aged and Crisis report, Homeless Truths, published this year, stated:
"There is no single definition of homelessness. It is defined in different ways by policy makers, service providers, academic researchers, the media and the public and this produces varying estimates of the scale of the problem".
The Royal College of Physicians, in its report, Homelessness and Ill Health, identified three categories of homeless people. The King's Fund report, Health and Homelessness in London, revised these categories to
1276
reflect the pattern of homelessness in London. The categories it used were, first, statutorily homeless people, defined under the Housing Act 1985; secondly, non-statutorily homeless people, staying in hostels, night shelters and so on; and thirdly, people sleeping rough. Other people use a wider definition: the lack of decent, secure, safe and affordable housing. This includes those whose homelessness is hidden from view. In some authorities teams of nurses are actively engaged in case finding for the homeless. It seems fitting to ask Her Majesty's Government what categories of homeless they intend to recognise in their policies and plans for care.
Lack of an adequate quality of accommodation, exposure to severe weather conditions, poor nutrition and limited access to hygiene facilities predispose to poor health. Specific medical disorders are commonly associated with homelessness; for example, respiratory disorders. Many experience chest and breathing problems, including bronchitis and lung cancer. There is a particular concern over the incidence of tuberculosis, especially drug resistant strains. One study found that homeless men are 50 times more likely to suffer from tuberculosis than the rest of the population. And now there is the relationship between HIV and tuberculosis.
Other types of morbidity commonly found include musculoskeletal disorders, foot problems—few of the homeless lie down to sleep—with chronic oedema, damage to the skin, infection and ulceration. Standing and walking for long periods in ill fitting shoes, alcoholism and poor nutrition lead to peripheral neuropathy, and sleeping in wet footwear leads to "trench foot". Then there are the dermatological disorders and infestations which are increased by lack of access to sanitary facilities. Mental health problems can be the cause and the result of homelessness. I am delighted to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be dealing with that subject. I leave it in her capable hands.
There is very little information on the dental health of the homeless in the UK. I was delighted to receive a paper from Daly, which brings together four surveys undertaken in the UK. They indicate that homeless people had almost twice as many missing teeth as the general population and three to five times as many decayed teeth. Old, broken and ill fitting dentures were common and 22 per cent. in one survey reported difficulties with chewing and biting and 16 per cent. reported themselves as in pain at the time they were interviewed.
Homelessness places a significant cost on the health system. Shelter estimates that in two London district health authorities acute admissions of homeless people cost £3 million per year. It has been estimated by the Standing Conference on Public Health that cold housing alone costs the health service £800 million every year. Poor housing is estimated to cost the NHS around £2 billion a year more per annum.
During the early 1990s the previous government took a number of initiatives in making provision for the homeless. They launched the rough sleepers initiative and in 1990 the then government and the Mental Health

1277
Foundation launched the mentally ill initiative, with £20 million being made available for accommodation and outreach teams. In addition, some 35 primary care schemes for the homeless were centrally funded.
I would ask the Minister to what extent Her Majesty's Government intend to maintain and extend these initiatives and whether they have any new initiatives in mind; for instance, for the young homeless and elderly homeless. Would they be in favour of the policy, which I am told happens in Paris, of sweeping up the homeless, particularly at night?
The provision of health care services is essential. I know that other noble Lords will speak on this topic and so I shall leave it to them. Perhaps I may just touch on the need for dental care and the work going on in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. A full clinical service is maintained at St. Giles and there is a combination of outreach work to hostels and day centres. It is an excellent model. Different models of care—an integrationist model, in which health care is integrated into mainstream health services; specialised schemes to improve access; and separate dedicated services—all have their role.
I have found a tremendous interest in the subject of homelessness. The Churches, the voluntary sector and statutory services seem to work together. There is no want of innovation and creativity. A great deal is being done. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to maintain, shape and fund the necessary services for this vulnerable group in society.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I believe this evening is an historic occasion in that it is the first time in which three nurses will have spoken in your Lordships' House. I am therefore very happy to thank the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for making this possible and for doing so in the context of a debate on such an important issue which she has introduced so comprehensively.
It is no surprise perhaps that this topic has been chosen for her maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. It reflects her professional commitment to advocacy on behalf of those who are among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. That choice is entirely consistent with the great contribution the noble Baroness has made to nursing and to healthcare throughout her professional career. I am sure that we all greatly look forward to hearing her speech.
I shall focus on the needs of those people who suffer from mental health problems and whose predicament is exacerbated by homelessness. Organisations working with and for the mentally ill who are suffering from homelessness, such as the National Schizophrenic Fellowship—NSF—and Mind, indicate and identify a number of interrelated issues which require urgent attention. These are substantiated by several research studies which show strong links between homelessness and mental health problems. For example, various research reports estimate that between 30 and 60 per cent. of homeless people in London have a severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, manic
1278
depression or major depression, and similar, although slightly lower, figures have been recorded for the rest of England and Wales. Problems facing people suffering mental illness have been exacerbated by the closure of hospital beds for the mentally ill without adequate alternatives being made available in the community.
Appropriate housing is the most important element in care plans for people with mental illness. A stable home greatly helps social, psychological and physical well-being. Homelessness by contrast is linked to loneliness, isolation, non-compliance with medication, deterioration in physical health, decreased chances of employment and financial insecurity—in fact, a dismal cycle of multiple deprivation. And very disturbingly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, indicated, increasing numbers of younger people are found among the homeless. They have difficulty accessing services in the community and cannot be hospitalised when they need care because of bed-blocking caused by shortages. For example, according to the NSF, acute beds in London are now oversubscribed by a terrifying figure of 200 per cent.
Problems are also experienced by patients being discharged from hospitals, including some of the most dependent and vulnerable patients, who may have been in hospital for many years. For them, the hospital may have become their home, indeed their world, their only constellation of personal relationships. The community to which they are discharged can be a very lonely place.
Other problems confront hospitals which are trying to discharge patients who are potentially a danger to themselves and to others and who need a safe, secure environment at least until treatment enables them to face the risks of living a less structured and supervised way of life. The extreme shortage of secure and medium-secure units for those trying to arrange discharges from hospital for these patients is causing a real crisis, especially for those patients for whom section orders expire and who must be found secure or medium-secure accommodation. There is not sufficient accommodation of this type available.
Time permits reference only to one research study: all these issues are underpinned by research. The study to which I refer is the Homeless (Mentally Ill) Initiative undertaken by Craig and colleagues whose findings were published in 1995. They reported on the work of five specialist teams in three of the former regional health authority areas of London. They confirmed between 30 and 50 per cent. prevalence of severe mental illness among users of night shelters, with schizophrenia as the most common diagnosis. They highlighted a number of issues of which I shall indicate just a few. The first was a need for much more psychiatric support for these vulnerable people.
The findings revealed that about one-third of those covered by the survey had lost their accommodation on account of mental illness, usually after they had been admitted to hospital. In two-thirds of resettlement so-called "failures", there had been a deterioration in a person's mental health which had not been identified and treated quickly enough. Therefore, among many recommendations was the need for joint commissioning and planning by health, social and housing agencies.

1279
I conclude by asking the Minister four questions. I shall fully understand if it is not possible to answer all of them tonight, but I would like to make them available for consideration. First, will the Government fulfil their pre-election promise of a moratorium on psychiatric bed closures at least until adequate and appropriate quality accommodation and support are ensured for those to be discharged? Secondly, will the Minister give an undertaking to promote policies designed to enhance co-ordination and communication between health and social services, the voluntary sector, the police and—very important indeed—the informal carers; and to improve speed of access to services, appropriate referrals, measures to protect vulnerable people from falling through the safety net of care and, in that context, support for those informal carers who play such a crucial role and who are often not recognised and identified with sufficient support?
Thirdly, will the Government consider sympathetically a range of options for different kinds of care for people with mental illness discharged from psychiatric hospitals? For example, will the option of village community-type care, so well established and well proven in this country and in other countries in terms of care effectiveness and cost effectiveness, be included impartially as one possible choice for those being discharged from hospital?
My last question is this. Homelessness is an outcome of the failure of community care in general. NSF believes that £500 million in revenue spending a year would be required to provide appropriate care and support for people with severe mental illness and their carers. Can the Minister give any assurance that appropriate resources will be available for the necessary care of these very vulnerable people?
It has been well said that the extent to which a society is civilised can be judged by the care it provides for its most vulnerable members. The same can be said of governments. One of the challenges facing the Government today is the problem of homelessness in general and of those who are mentally ill in particular, whose problems are exacerbated by homelessness. This debate provides a valuable opportunity for the Government to show how they will rise to these challenges and, if they can, give hope to those who are now suffering from inadequate provisions and encouragement to those who are currently trying to provide that care for the mentally ill with dedication but too often without the resources to do so as effectively as they would wish and as the mentally ill need.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, it is an honour to be able to address your Lordships' House. I ask for your Lordships' indulgence as I deliver my maiden speech. I first declare an interest in that I am a chairman of a health care trust and a chief officer of St. John Ambulance.
The Patient's Charter states that every individual has a right to receive health care on the basis of their clinical need, not on their ability to pay, their lifestyle or any other factor.
1280
The various categories of homeless people described by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, frequently experience problems in obtaining appropriate health care due to prejudice against the homeless by health professionals and in particular by many general practitioners who refuse to register the homeless. This leads to a reluctance by the homeless to seek health care until diseases become debilitating or there is a suffering of severe pain. In addition, the homeless tend to be a mobile population and therefore continuity of care presents a problem, especially for those suffering a mental illness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned.
The health status of people sleeping rough is far worse than that of the general population and research has shown that the average life expectancy of people who sleep rough is only to their mid-forties.
In 1981, Sir Donald Acheson, the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health, highlighted the imbalance between the generous provision of acute hospitals and the poor overall quality of primary and community health care, the consequences being that many patients ended up being treated in hospital. As far as the homeless are concerned, 16 years later there is evidence that A&E departments are being used inappropriately. A study published last year into the use of a London teaching hospital A&E department demonstrated that, if all the patients who had inappropriately attended the department had attended a more appropriate general practitioner surgery, a saving of £60,000 would have been achieved. If that was applied across all A&E departments, a substantial saving to the National Health Service could be made.
Frequently, those presenting at an A&E department have an overriding problem of alcohol or substance abuse or mental illness and can be very consuming of staff time in their management. Evidence from a research project in Brighton in 1995 demonstrates clearly an inappropriate use of the department in particular by the street homeless.
Accessibility to appropriate health care provision is, therefore, a paramount need for this group of people. The previous government, following a favourable evaluation of two pilot schemes, part-funded 35 schemes across the country. Health authorities were then asked to consider improving access by homeless people to primary health care. In Sussex, 1.1 per cent. of the total population is homeless—that is, 3,453—and of these 1,792 are in Brighton and Hove. This is approximately 50 per cent. of the Sussex homeless population. In the 1991 census, there were 66 people sleeping rough, giving Brighton the highest rate of street homeless per capita in the UK.
I visited one of the pilot schemes situated in Brighton, called First Base, where approximately 160 homeless attend daily for a range of services, including health care. This is a well integrated scheme which meets the needs of both street homeless and those in bed and breakfast accommodation, many suffering from physical or mental illness. The health care provision is made by a nurse practitioner and a nurse who attend the centre on a regular sessional basis. It is quite evident that the relationship between the homeless and the nurses, while

1281
professional, is very informal and demonstrates mutual trust. There is also a general practitioner attached to the centre who attends on a sessional basis, but it is the nurse to whom the majority of homeless relate. It is, therefore, the role of the nurse practitioner which has proved to be very useful in filling the gap for homeless people who are not registered with a general practitioner.
An evaluation showed very high levels of patient satisfaction where nurse consultation for minor injuries were introduced: 86 per cent. of patients required no doctor contact at all. With the proper education for nurse practitioners, providing knowledge, skill base and competences to the appropriate standard, there is no reason why evidence-based practice cannot be delivered to a very high standard. The United Kingdom central council has through its policy scope of practice facilitated the development of extended roles and this has been supported by the Royal College of Nursing in programmes of preparation among many other colleges across the country. An increase in nurse practitioners would be a cost-effective route to the provision of appropriate health care for the homeless—and I would ask the Minister to consider this.
The centre I visited recently could, I believe, deliver a more cost-effective and efficient service to the homeless if the nurse prescribing legislation had been such as to allow the nurse practitioner prescribing rights. A review chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the subsequent publication of the report Neighbourhood Nursing—A Focus for Care in 1986, recommended that community nurses be permitted to prescribe from a specified nursing formulary. This was followed by a Private Member's Bill which received Royal Assent in 1992. The statutory instruments allow district nurses and health visitors in specific pilot projects to prescribe from a limited formulary. There is now a nurse prescribing pilot scheme in each English NHS region and two in Scotland. The previous Government's White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, published in December 1996 announced that nurse prescribing would be extended throughout the country from May 1998.
It is evident that with the rapid growth of practice innovations, highly trained nurses who are specialists in a variety of areas are equipped to know and deliver the most appropriate and clinically effective treatment for their patients. This is particularly true of nurse practitioners treating homeless people. They could well benefit by inclusion in the nurse prescribing group. The Royal College of Nursing is pressing for legislation which would be sufficiently flexible to allow nurses who hold specialist qualifications and have appropriate skills and competences to be considered eligible for prescribing rights. Safeguards, checks and balances would be easy to implement as registered nurses now have to comply with the United Kingdom central council post-registration education project requirements for regular updating.
The formulary is currently restricted to a range of products based around the provision of nursing care involving treatment of wounds, minor injuries and some
1282
fungal infections. These alone would allow nurses to give appropriate care effectively to the homeless without the involvement of a doctor.
There is an obvious need for education of health professionals to break down the barriers of prejudice and marginalisation of homeless people and, where possible, to include homeless people in contributing to the planning of the provision of services most appropriate to them. This is not easy and in my experience of involving people with learning difficulties in the planning of services for themselves, it requires patience and understanding—but in the long term it is very worth while. Likewise, homeless people know the type of service they would respond to and can provide a useful contribution to its planning.
In planning services, one must not forget the importance of inter-agency working, and this should include the voluntary sector, which currently provides many services for the homeless. In particular, in my role in St. John Ambulance, I have been involved with the recent launch of a mobile unit pilot scheme in Manchester which provides first aid and primary health care during the evenings for the homeless. Volunteer nurses and volunteers specially trained provide these services. It is hoped to expand the project to two further centres this year. The volunteers provide a non-bureaucratic, easily accessible service, but they have the knowledge and skill to be able to refer clients to appropriate agencies if necessary. Funding of these schemes is, however, difficult for voluntary organisations and development is limited by the availability of funds.
The health care needs of the homeless is an area of need which requires government guidance and support to ensure that homeless people receive health care on the basis of their clinical need as stated in the Patient's Charter.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and thus to have the privilege of congratulating her and of welcoming her on behalf of the whole House. Her long and distinguished career in St. John Ambulance where, among her other executive duties she leads that great organisation's excellent care in the community programme, together with her experience in regional health care, make her unusually qualified to participate in this debate this evening, as we have heard. I understand that the noble Baroness's career began early when she achieved the distinction of being awarded the Grand Prior certificate before she was 16 when she was a cadet. I feel sure that all noble Lords who have heard her this evening will agree that she has achieved a similar success with her maiden speech and that they will join me in hoping that we shall hear her speak again very soon.
I propose to concentrate my own few words tonight on the concern that a growing number of mentally handicapped people may be becoming homeless. I use the

1283
words "mentally handicapped" instead of the more usual expression "people with learning disabilities" because I wish to distinguish between mental handicap and mental illness, which has been so admirably dealt with by my noble friend Lady Cox.
I would submit that a mentally handicapped person who is homeless is most unlikely to enjoy an adequate level of health care. Before I go any further, I should declare an interest as the father of a mentally handicapped daughter, and as Honorary President of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care, known for short as RESCARE.
Perhaps the most disturbing evidence that increasing numbers of mentally handicapped people may be becoming homeless came from the Department of Health itself last year. In its evaluation report on residential care provision, it admitted that there is already a shortfall of some 25,000 residential places for people with a mental handicap, and it predicted increased demand over the next two decades. This is not surprising because many of the parents who are still looking after their mentally handicapped children are not getting any younger and are now very worried about what will happen to those children when they die. There is therefore a growing shortage of residential provision, and community care is, alas, increasingly unable to cope.
There are other worrying developments: one of these is that when people are discharged from long-stay hospitals into community care, their former friends and contacts in their hospital are often being encouraged not to stay in touch with them. I gather the theory is that this will spare them from carrying with them into community care what their social workers and others imagine may be the stigma of having been in a hospital. But of course it means that those who used to care for them and know about them may lose touch with them completely. The fear is that some of them, perhaps many of them, may now be ending up homeless.
Another disturbing report appeared in The Times on 23rd June this year, to the effect that some GPs may be dropping people with a mental handicap from their lists. If this is happening, it would seem to lend support for the retention of centralised hospital services with the kind of village communities which RESCARE favours. In those circumstances, many of us were very encouraged by the pre-election indications from the Labour Party that it would impose a moratorium on further closures of long-stay hospitals for people with a mental handicap and on the sale of the sites in question. But now that the Minister's party is in government, I am not quite sure what its new policy may be. Perhaps its mind is not yet made up.
The Minister may be aware that my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Renton and I did our best over several years to persuade the previous government to halt these closures until it was really safe to proceed with them, and we failed. We failed also to get the previous government to encourage residential and village communities for mentally handicapped people as one of the choices which should be available to them and to their families. Indeed, a number of long-stay
1284
hospitals would be eminently suitable for conversion into residential communities, but such evolution appears to be resisted in the Department of Health and by local services, although there is a huge demand for the lifestyle and care which they provide.
To be specific, I can give the examples of St. Ebba's Hospital, Epsom, and Offerton House, Stockport, where reputable public companies have offered to finance, develop and run such communities. Those projects are strongly supported locally and by the relevant parents' and relatives' organisations, and yet they are being resisted by the local health authorities. If pursued, those projects must also provide invaluable pilot studies of how old style long-stay hospitals can be converted into something modern and useful. So I very much hope that the new Government will take a fresh look at the case for village communities for mentally handicapped people—my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned mentally ill people. That case was succinctly set out by my noble friend in her publication Made to Care in April 1995, the conclusions of which, as far as I know, have never been seriously challenged. Briefly, these are that village communities can provide a much richer and more fulfilling life for some people with a mental handicap, with better on-site medical care than can sometimes be provided under community care. And of course well run village communities remove the danger of homelessness entirely. RESCARE's national survey continues to show that at least half the families of mentally handicapped people want village communities as an option for their relatives. And, finally, although we were not supposed to say so under the previous government, our communities provide all this very much more cheaply than can community care.
This does not mean that our support for village communities is driven largely by considerations of cost. But, as my noble friend Lady Cox repeatedly asked the previous government, if village communities are care effective, and they are, if many of the people concerned desperately want them, and they do, and if they are also cost-effective, why do we not encourage them? Why instead do we resist their development? At the very least, we would hope that the new Government might end the ambiguity pursued by the previous government and put village communities firmly and clearly back on the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged by the Government to support. No one is asking for a monopoly, but the evidence is now overwhelming that village communities should be part of that provision.
If I may, after this debate I shall present the Minister with a free copy of Made to Care. It has an excellent one-page summary on the back, and I very much hope that she may find time to read at least that. Perhaps she, or her appropriate colleague in government, might also find time to meet my noble friends and I, so that we can dispel any doubts she may have about the common sense and compassion of what we propose.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for raising this Question on behalf of those who have little or no voice or clout themselves. I thank her also for the kind remarks she made about me. It has been a great privilege to play a part in your Lordships' House over some 17 years. I have a disappointment that it is natural to express at this moment. In my maiden speech I remember expressing my hope that if the nation wanted the Church to be represented in Parliament that that should be on an ecumenical basis and not just one Church. I am saddened that with all the other progress we have made in the Churches, that has not yet come about.
I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on her maiden speech, made out of detailed and wide knowledge, and with a deep concern for homeless people as people who are worth something.
The Standing Conference on Public Health Working Group report of 1994 identified two most important reasons as to why homeless people may not have good access to health care: first, the mobility of homeless people, which has been spoken about, not necessarily of their own choice; secondly, unsympathetic and occasionally hostile reactions from the providers of health care. The rough sleepers' initiative made money available to address the health needs of homeless people; £20 million from the Department of Health to set up a major project in London concerned with mental illness among homeless people. That included multi-disciplinary teams to find people who were not in touch with statutory services. Money was also put into providing primary health care on a drop-in basis in hospitals or day centres. For example, in Liverpool, the Whitechapel Day Centre offers consultations with GPs, chiropody and eye tests, and has the services of a community psychiatric nurse. It is obvious that we need to go to find people rather than to expect that they will always turn up for appointments.
Churches have substantial involvement in offering services to homeless people. Nationally, the Church Urban Fund has made grants of £2.6 million to projects addressing homelessness and nearly £800,000 for projects concerning health in the community. London churches in particular are involved in many projects for homeless people. The London Churches Group, on behalf of all Churches, published a report last year From Sympathy to Solidarity, picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, about drawing people in to share in some of the thinking and decision making. It identified a large number of projects run by churches in London: 85 hostels or night shelters; 19 housing associations; 45 day centres and drop-in lunches; nine assistance advice centres and 31 soup runs. It estimated that 44 per cent. of users had serious problems with alcohol, drugs or mental health. It is crucial that closer links are made with health services for referrals or regular on-site sessions.
It would be misleading to assume that problems of homelessness are, as I used to believe until recently, confined to major cities. In our diocese of Liverpool, we
1286
are currently negotiating with the Church Army for the possible full-time appointment of a housing and homelessness officer. A survey by our Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility 1995–96 showed that no fewer than 3,687 households were accepted as homeless by the eight local authorities in the diocese. More than two thirds of them were outside Liverpool: Warrington, with a large number of travellers; Wigan, for example, has a homelessness problem fast approaching that of Liverpool. Of those nearly 3,700 households, the local authorities were able to house 2,200 only. They conclude that the problem of homelessness is getting worse.
Dr. John Balazs is a full-time GP in Stockwell, in south London. Reference has been made to two teams providing services in Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth. He says that there are financial disincentives for GPs to register homeless patients. Most GPs will not register people who are expected to stay for only a few weeks. Temporary registration means a one-off payment, but no fee, for example, for immunisation, no targets, no health checks and no health promotional activities because there is no incentive.
Dr. Balazs concludes that the current NHS system fails homeless women in particular. For example, a high speed smear service is needed rather than the ordinary service. He says that having female carers available is very important for homeless women. He also says:
"My conclusion was that although prevention is sometimes a low priority for homeless women. it must he a high priority for their carers".
I shall make three further points. First, the delivery of health care to homeless people requires flexibility. That is plain from all that has been said. A good practice will sometimes accept self referral and will offer accessibility without appointment. Outreach workers and health advocates can make vital connections for people who are fearful of health agencies or who are perhaps unable to speak English. The report of the Standing Conference on Public Health, from which I quoted at the beginning of my speech, encourages such flexibility, particularly in meeting its first point about clients' mobility.
Its second point about unsympathetic and occasionally hostile reactions from the providers of healthcare led it to encourage training on how to work sensitively and effectively with homeless people. Sometimes a natural fear is involved in the process which may lie underneath unsympathetic attitudes. Perhaps I may share what your Lordships will understand has been a painful experience. The vicarage door is another place where homeless people go. In particular in urban priority areas, clergy and their families are sometimes the only professional people who live in the parish and are available at weekends and after 5 p.m. Following the tragedy of the killing of one of our clergy last summer outside his vicarage door, naturally there have been fears and an acceptance of the need for training in coping with such doorstep visitors. Staff at Ashworth Hospital have provided extremely helpful training days attended by a high proportion of our clergy

1287
and their spouses. I believe that such training may take away some fears and with them some of the hostility of health workers, too.
Thirdly, the London Churches' report highlighted attitudes of providers in its title, From Sympathy to Solidarity. That was echoed in the fine statement made last winter by the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, The Common Good. It stated:
"The poor are not a problem: they are our brothers and sisters".
There needs to be respect for homeless people as people.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the plight of homeless people is raised frequently in this House, but normally only in regard to finding them accommodation, suitable or otherwise. It is important that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, has raised the question of the health of homeless people. It is so often neglected. Furthermore, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, chose to use this Unstarred Question to make her maiden speech. I, too, hope that we shall hear her frequently; she is well worth listening to.
In 1991, 4,430 disabled people were accepted as homeless. That was 3 per cent. of the homeless total. By 1996 the number had risen to 6,380, or 5.5 per cent. of the total. Can the Minister advise the House whether that trend continues? She may not have the answer at her fingertips, but perhaps she could advise me later.
In 1996, 5,570 older people were homeless, which was 5.5 per cent. of the total homeless, and 8,330, or 7 per cent., had a mental illness. Therefore, in 1996, more than 17 per cent. of the households accepted as homeless had within them a person who was disabled, elderly or mentally ill.
I understand that many of the people who are homeless and sleeping rough, or who live in direct access hostels, are not considered to be homeless by the local authority, often because they themselves do not seek help or may not know where to find help. It is estimated that of these people one-third have a severe mental illness and half have a physical condition such as bronchitis, pneumonia, arthritis or a visual impairment.
Homeless people in priority need, including disabled people, are put into temporary accommodation. This type of accommodation can of itself be detrimental to health. In 1994, the Standing Conference on Public Health found that such accommodation is liable to be more overcrowded than any other type of tenure. A study last year for the King's Fund found that a cramped environment hinders the development of walking and co-ordination in children, which could lead to problems later in life. Overcrowding also encourages the spread of disease, in particular among children.
Many homeless people, who often have to move frequently, have difficulty in registering with a general medical practitioner, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. Consequently, they make use of hospital casualty departments. Can the Minister confirm that the cost of an inappropriate visit to a casualty department is about £44, or three times the cost of a visit to a general practitioner, which is about £15?
1288
The inability to register with a GP is a serious problem for some disabled people, as they may have a condition which requires a particular knowledge from the GP and an understanding of the person's history. What do the Government propose to do to improve that situation'?
Local authorities place homeless people in temporary accommodation. That brings great difficulties for people with disabilities. The accommodation is often not accessible nor are the facilities within it and due to the short-term nature of the tenure, it is impractical to make adaptations. Temporary accommodation may well be damp and cold, which also brings serious problems for disabled people. Such accommodation may also be unsafe for people who are blind or who have a visual impairment. They must reorientate themselves in a new environment every time they move. That could well lead to accidents.
When considering sight, it is worth mentioning that homeless people and those in temporary accommodation are not as likely as others to have their sight tested regularly, if at all. Regular sight tests are an integral part of health checks. A sight test can detect treatable eye conditions at an early stage. I am told that a number of homeless people may well have developed advanced conditions such as glaucoma and diabetes retinopathy which could have been treated earlier. What are the Government doing to advise homeless people on benefit that they are exempt from charges for eye tests and that they can be given help towards the costs of glasses or contact lenses?
9.10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, for introducing a very necessary debate. Secondly, equally warmly, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on her distinguished, thoughtful and experienced maiden speech. My only regret is that she used many lines that I had been hoping to use but I cannot think any worse of her judgment for that.
I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who first drew my attention to this subject back in 1989 when she asked a Question about the operation of the GP capitation scheme in relation to the registration of the homeless. I first realised the importance of the subject when I saw her difficulty in getting the Minister to face up to the precise content of the Question. But now both the present Minister and the present shadow Minister have faced up to the content of that, and I hope that we may hear some answers this evening.
I should also like to tell the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool a story which comes from perhaps rather longer ago than I wish to remember. One of my university contemporaries, subsequently my best man, had submitted an academic paper to the regius professor. His chances of employment depended wholly on the regius professor's opinion of the paper. But when he arrived on the regius professor's doorstep, he found him stamping about in a frenzy of impatience saying, "Sheppard is batting. Come on", and once he observed that sight, he thought that the regius professor's judgment was entirely justified.

1289
This evening, we have again seen Sheppard batting. It is done with the same grace and distinction on the same foundation of hard work and technical skill in one place as it was in the other. I find it very difficult to imagine this House without him.
When we talk about the homeless, we usually think about two different sorts of homeless: not only the street homeless but also those in bed and breakfast accommodation. There is a considerable health problem in both cases. I remember very vividly a debate in this House on 6th July 1992 on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, recommending a boarder premium for those in bed and breakfast and on income support. That was put to a Division and carried. Nothing has yet happened as a result of that Motion. It was based on the problem of people living in large bed and breakfast buildings where there are, for example, three gas rings between 39 couples; people with a toddler cooking three floors below where they live; and babies pulling saucepans off stoves. One of the local GPs reported a considerable problem with scalds. All of them report problems with diarrhoea. All of them report low rates of immunisation. Those matters need attention.
But the bulk of what I want to say is based, as were the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on the Shelter report, Go Home and Rest?, the study of the casualty department at University College Hospital. In the sample there, only 30 per cent. have a GP, as against 97 per cent. of the population as a whole. However, even that 30 per cent. probably underestimated the problem, because it may very often have been a GP at the person's old address before he or she became homeless. Indeed, 57 per cent. of the visits were found to be inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, have quoted the figures in that respect, so I shall not repeat them.
The problem with the capitation fees, perhaps the most urgent matter needing attention, is that if a patient registers permanently and then moves on within a quarter of a year, the GP receives no capitation fee at all. However, if the person registers temporarily, the GP gets no financial reimbursement for vaccinations, so health suffers either way. I hope that the problem can be addressed.
In most categories of homeless illness we find a lower threshold of hospital admission. In the sample to which I have referred, pregnancy was twice as likely to lead to hospital admission in the homeless as in the housed. I do not think that I need to explain to the House why. Moreover, among people suffering from injury, 16 per cent. of the homeless were admitted to hospital and only 8 per cent. of the housed. The biggest problem was infected wounds. I do not believe that I need to explain why it is difficult to treat infected wounds while sleeping on the pavement in the Strand.
Among depressives, the study found that 42 per cent. of the homeless were admitted to hospital as compared with 32 per cent. of the housed. I do not know whether that means that depression is worse among the homeless or that they are more easily admitted because they are
1290
less able to cope with it. Either way, there is a real cost to be paid for homelessness; and costs, like water, must go somewhere.
There is also the considerable problem about illness caused by homelessness. Indeed, expectation of life is 42 or 47 years, depending upon which study you are reading, compared with 74 for men and 79 for women among the housed. In the study, TB was 25 times the national average among the homeless. In the study quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, it was 50 times and, in an earlier study from Crisis, it was 200 times. They are all small samples, and I do not wish to speculate on which is right; but sometimes it is a good idea to put oneself in a position where one does not have to find out. The rate of asthma among people in the study was double in the homeless what it was in the housed. Again, if one thinks of the diesel particulates along the pavements in the Strand, I believe one can understand why. It was also found that injuries were four times as likely to be the result of assault, and that is something of which the whole country should be ashamed.
Mental health was found to be the second commonest cause of admission for the homeless compared with one tenth among the housed. Again, I do not know whether it is mental health problems which make people homeless or whether it is the homelessness which gives people the mental health problems; alternatively, in some of the cases that I know best, perhaps it is a vicious circle between the two. Either way it needs attention. I strongly agree with—indeed, I strongly support—what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said about the closure of mental hospital beds. We need better facilities for the homeless and we need fewer homeless people. Without one, we will not get the other, and, without the other, we will not get the one.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, for initiating tonight's debate. Indeed, it is a subject which needs a very honest and forthright hearing, and I believe we have had just that tonight. I noticed that the noble Baroness, quite rightly, had some problems in citing definitions of homelessness. However, I am grateful to her for exploring that and also for her thoughtful exploration of the whole subject. Perhaps I may also thank the noble Baroness for her tribute to the previous government.
We also heard a remarkably authoritative contribution from our maiden speaker; but then the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton (of Tunbridge Wells and Clerkenwell), is no stranger to authority. I am not sure how many of your Lordships have seen the noble Baroness in her uniform of St. John, but I can certainly say that she is just terrifying when she is wearing it. Of course, there is a softer side to the noble Baroness; for example, I know that she has a penchant for teddy bears. If she is very diligent, I think she might find one or two even among your Lordships.

1291
However, we have also seen a further aspect of the noble Baroness this evening. I should like to pay tribute to her for her knowledge, her wisdom and her understanding not only of nursing, of which of course she is one of this country's outstanding leaders, but also of this complex and difficult subject that we are discussing tonight. We have heard from her of some of the imaginative initiatives being undertaken in Brighton, an acute trust which I know from personal experience she chairs with great distinction.
I also know Brighton quite well. It is a town which over many years has worked hard to establish itself as a smart conference and commercial centre, and indeed it has succeeded. But there is a darker side to this seaside resort and it has pockets of terrible deprivation. Even now its character is not entirely removed from Graham Greene's novel Brighton Rock. A few years ago it was said that Brighton had a murder a month. I am not sure whether that is true today, but it has its quota of homeless and unhappy people who, quite properly, are cared for by the social services, the local health authority and trusts and voluntary organisations, of which there are many of a high quality. However, these organisations find it difficult and challenging to support the numbers of homeless people within Brighton.
In a field study undertaken by Maureen Crane, a nurse researcher who won an award for her work, 159 men and 66 women, all aged over 55, were interviewed in London, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester. Nearly two-thirds of those interviewed had been homeless for more than five years and half of these have been homeless for over 20 years. The interesting point to note is that before becoming homeless 40 per cent. had been owner occupiers or tenants—a much larger proportion than I would have anticipated—a fifth had been living with their parents and the rest had been in private lodgings, barracks, ships, prisons, mental hospitals, children's homes or living with relatives or cohabitees.
Her fieldwork revealed a number of common themes as to why these people had become homeless. Nearly 60 per cent. reported broken or disturbed homes, sometimes during their childhood or teenage years. Some had become homeless as a result of marital or other relationships breaking down. This often occurred quite late in life. A significant number had been in the Armed Forces or Merchant Navy, many of whom had never been able to establish or maintain a stable relationship or family life.
Maureen Crane found that two-thirds reported or exhibited some form of mental health problem, although—this has been mentioned tonight—only a tenth said that they were receiving any form of treatment. Not surprisingly, in common with the results of other studies, most also had physical problems which were untreated. These included respiratory conditions, hypertension, arthritis, oedema and peripheral vascular disease, gastro-intestinal complaints, alcohol related problems and trauma. I mention all this because I want to put what can be an overwhelming problem into some sort of context.
1292
The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, mentioned Brighton's First Base day centre which is a welcoming and well run place and which looks after these types of people suffering from these sorts of conditions. I share the admiration of the noble Baroness for the centre and the people who work in it. They show great humanity, much skill and sometimes considerable courage. As she said, and studies show—this was further endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—these are the people who are most reluctant to register with a GP. Not surprisingly there are many GPs who are reluctant to have them on their books. However, a nurse is less threatening, especially when he or she is working in an environment the homeless person knows well and finds comfortable and non-threatening. Once accepted a skilled nurse practitioner is valued, used and consulted without fear. However, there is a rub. Despite having a diploma—and the vast majority of nurses now do, and in the future all will—and despite many of them having degrees, a nurse practitioner with all that knowledge, commitment and expertise does not have the authority to prescribe the most simple medicines or therapeutic aids.
I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, may well be growing weary of my persistence on this subject. Although I do not have the skills to mount what I can describe only as a Countess of Mar campaign—which, incidentally, I greatly admire—I wish tonight to issue a government health warning. I shall be persistent and deeply boring on this subject. I shall be persistent because I have seen at first hand the benefits and advantages which nurse prescribing brings: benefits to patients, doctors and the nursing profession. They are benefits which are far reaching in terms of time saving: time saved in reducing the suffering and discomfort of patients; time saved by doctors and nurses in getting a prescription signed.
Is it not ridiculous that middle-aged, professional women should have to wait outside a GP's door for the doctor to end his consultation in order to get a piece of paper signed? The recent study by the RCN showed that the GP's signature simply endorsed the decision made by the specialist nurse. I have even heard one doctor say that he would sign a prescription for a Chieftain tank if that was what the nurse wanted.
But is it not ridiculous that here we have a nurse practitioner equipped with a broad range of skills, some diagnostic, who through her nurse practitioner course has acquired pharmacological and prescribing knowledge and who is able to deliver the most comprehensive primary care possible to homeless people but as yet is not able legally to prescribe the most modest and limited medication? A homeless man with a chesty cough should not have to be admitted to an expensive hospital bed, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, when he could be treated with a simple antibiotic. A woman with mild thrush should not have to suffer the pain and discomfort of a lesion for the want of a simple anti-fungal agent.
The Minister will be aware of the eight nurse-prescribing pilot sites which have now been running successfully for two to three years. The sites were evaluated, but not all the results were crystal clear. They varied. Some showed a reduction in prescribing

1293
costs, some a modest increase, but when closely examined the increase was sometimes because prescribing had started from a very low base in that practice and sometimes because one or two "expensive" patients had come into the area and required relatively expensive drugs. Whatever the reasons, in none of the eight sites was there an increase above the national average increase for drugs overall.
In all the evaluations there were no worries expressed by the patients. On the contrary, they could not understand why this was considered to be an innovation. They thought that it was common sense that the nurse should be allowed to prescribe from an agreed formulary of simple agents and nursing aids.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, will tell me that she is waiting for the results of the Bolton Trust, which until April of this year was the only district to have rolled out nurse prescribing throughout the whole of its area. I have no doubt that the trust will produce some interesting information. But the purpose of the scheme was not for more research but as a means of phasing in the programme, as was the initiative to set up a nurse-prescribing trust in every region, all of which are now under way.
What is the Government's commitment to nurse prescribing? When do they intend to roll it out? The noble Baroness will know that the previous Government gave an undertaking to do so, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton.
Lastly, in the light of the Crown Committee's deliberations, will the Minister please say what the link will be between those possible recommendations and the Primary Care Directorate? As I understand it, in future no nurse will be on that directorate. I should like to know where the link comes, especially in the context of nurse prescribing.
9.28 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, for introducing this important debate; and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on what I believe we all agree was a wise and powerful maiden speech. I look forward, as I am sure do all noble Lords, to many further contributions in a similar vein. I am sad that we have heard the swan song of the right reverend Prelate in your Lordships' House. I feel that I can perhaps refer to it as his "final innings", as I was a schoolgirl fan at about the same time as the anecdote of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In any case, I am sure that we shall all hear his voice of insight and compassion through other channels if not any longer, sadly, in your Lordships' House.
At the beginning of my reply to the debate, I wish to restate emphatically the Government's commitment to reducing the numbers of homeless people in our society. We have to attack the root causes of homelessness. For too long the homeless population have represented the growing divide, the inexcusable inequality, in this country. Their plight has defaced our city streets.
It is, no doubt, a very complex problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said in her introduction. The noble Baroness drew attention to a wide range of
1294
illnesses associated with homelessness, as did the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The noble Baroness rightly emphasised the need to approach the problem as part of a general social agenda.
The Government have already taken action to improve the housing situation. Legislation has been introduced for the phased release of capital receipts for council house sales to increase the stock of housing for rent. Specific measures in this area are being taken in relation to the homeless. Last Thursday, 17th July, new regulations on the allocation of housing were debated in another place; and this Friday, 25th July, my noble friend Lady Hayman will introduce them in this House.
As the law now stands, a local authority can provide accommodation only for a household which it accepts as homeless for two years. The authority cannot generally rehouse that household directly into long-term housing, even though a secure home may be just what the household needs to overcome its many problems.
The new regulations will alter Part VI of the 1996 Housing Act so that local authorities' duties to homeless households must ensure that homeless families, and indeed vulnerable individuals, have the priority that they deserve in social housing queues. We hope that that may ease the practical problem of finding somewhere to live.
On a wider front, my right honourable and honourable friends, as well as my colleagues in this House in every government department, are particularly concerned about youth homelessness in all its forms. The Welfare to Work scheme, announced in last month's Budget and now being implemented by the Department for Education and Employment, is the start of a systematic programme of investing in young people to give those who may now be living on the street the realistic hope of a job and a different start in life.
Homelessness is an affront to a civilised society. We must not simply accept that it is an immovable social problem. Although we rightly discuss health provisions for the homeless, as in the terms of this debate, we should not believe that ameliorating activity is anything more than a sticking-plaster on a social wound that we must find fundamental ways of healing.
The Government are extremely concerned about the links between poverty and ill health—an issue largely ignored by the previous administration. The first Minister for Public Health, my honourable friend Tessa Jowell, has already set out the broad lines of a policy which embraces the impact on health of social factors such as homelessness, bad housing, unemployment and pollution. Those will be developed in a White Paper later in this parliamentary Session. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, met representatives of Shelter to discuss the particular health concerns of homeless people. Much of the discussion focused on their needs for primary care and the problems that they often encounter because they are not registered with GPs. It is a matter to which several speakers quite rightly drew attention in their contributions this evening. Several noble Lords referred to the disturbing report, Go Home and Rest?, which examines the use of accident and emergency services by homeless people—the inappropriate use of services, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, described it.

1295
There is often legitimate concern that homeless people simply are not entitled to access to a GP because they have no permanent address under which to register. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that a permanent address is not necessary for registration with a GP, and all health authorities and GPs should be aware of that.
Both the Government and the Royal College of General Practitioners would prefer that homeless people should be permanently registered wherever possible so that they may be integrated into all the health service and promotion activity within a GP practice. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, drew attention to the complications brought about when that does not occur.
Where the homeless do not stay in any one area, they may still have access to GP services as temporary residents on what is termed an immediately necessary basis. How do you find a GP, though, if you are homeless? I suspect that there may be a need for the wider distribution of information. It is a matter that I shall certainly look into.
Health authorities can provide a list of GPs in an area; to register, patients should approach the GP of their choice who is willing to accept them. They may then be required to hand in a medical card or to complete a simple form. It remains a decision for GPs as to whether or not they will accept a patient as a permanent registration and some may choose, for the reasons that the noble Earl suggested, to offer the services only under the temporary residence provision. But there is no question of the NHS abandoning any person who is entitled to NHS general medical services, whether they live in permanent or temporary accommodation.
In addition, the Government are anxious to reinforce the guidance issued by the General Medical Council which makes it clear to general practitioners that it is unacceptable to discriminate against patients on grounds of age, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, perceived economic worth or the amount of work that they are likely to generate by virtue of their clinical condition. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for drawing attention to this need not to discriminate in general practice.
The Government are also providing funding of over £0.5 million in the current financial year for the provision of GP sessions which provide medical services in places where homeless people congregate. The GP, who is often supported by other professionals, will visit places such as day centres, night shelters or hostels and seek where possible to get the homeless person on to the list of a local doctor. In some cases it has been possible to persuade people first meeting a doctor at a day care centre session subsequently to attend that doctor's surgery. That is, of course, precisely the kind of place where such things as eye tests, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred, should be carried out and where better information on such matters should be more widely distributed.
Funding for these peripatetic GP sessions will continue to be available for the whole of the current financial year and for 1998–99.
1296
We hope to be able to take further initiatives under the primary care Act pilots which will come into force next April. The House will be interested to know that the Government have received a number of expressions of interest in pilots under the primary care Act aimed specifically at improving the provision of personal medical services to people who have difficulty registering with GPs for the reasons which noble Lords have identified and I have just described.
The new contractual arrangements in these pilots will, for example, allow salaried GPs to be employed by trusts. This option could lead to medical services at the primary care level being better tailored for groups such as the homeless. For example, as several noble Lords have mentioned, homeless people often present themselves at A&E departments rather than at a GP's surgery, and I can confirm that that is certainly a more expensive way of giving care. But the new contractual arrangements currently to be piloted under the primary care Act may facilitate joint working between GPs and A&E departments and we shall look very carefully at the details of these proposals when they come to us later in the year.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, will recall the unsuccessful attempts that she and I made during the passage of the primary care Act at the end of the last Parliament to have nurses included as leaders and organisers of such pilots. Had such provisions been part of the Act, there is no doubt that they would have usefully extended the scope of additional services in the community.
Nevertheless I join the noble Baroness and the noble Baronesses, Lady Emerton, Lady Cox and Lady Cumberlege, in underlining the importance of nurse-led initiatives both in London and, as was described, in Brighton which do exist under the present arrangements. They bring primary health care and health promotion to homeless people.
I know, in addition, that the nursing profession believe that its work in this field and perhaps in many others could be improved if nurse-prescribing were rolled out nationally, and I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, with regard to that matter. I am keen to see the existing scheme for nurse-prescribing implemented nationally as quickly as is feasible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, the current pilots in each NHS region will show us how best to do this. I am, however, reluctant to take any lectures from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about the speed with which we are doing this, as we have so far been in power for less than 18 weeks compared to the 18 years of the previous administration.
Some of the most crucial work that nurses are doing with homeless people is as part of multi-disciplinary teams trying to combat the particularly difficult problems of those who are both homeless and mentally ill. As has been described by several of your Lordships, this has become a vicious cycle. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, developed very vividly the matters which arise when one is talking about people who have neither a home nor the satisfaction of proper mental stability.

1297
I hope that the noble Baroness and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will forgive me if tonight I do not go into a detailed response to their specific questions about different types of community care. I hope they will both accept that the Government are taking a fresh look at the interface between social care and health care. I hesitate to use the word "review", since the Government are constantly criticised at the moment for trying to reassess problems of this kind. My honourable friend Mr. Paul Boateng, the Minister responsible for this area, is at the moment conducting a series of consultations and meetings in different parts of the country designed to look at the variety of different solutions about the interface between social and health care. Of course, that will be a central subject and an important topic for the Government's Royal Commission on long-term care, for which we shall be announcing the format quite shortly.
Perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that some initiatives are going forward in trying to meet the health care needs of the mentally ill and homeless. The Government are providing funds in the current year for the homeless mentally-ill initiative. Its aim is to reintroduce this group of people to mainstream services by encouraging them into temporary accommodation, where they can be offered suitable care and assistance before, it is to be hoped, they move into more secure homes.
So far, some of these measures have been successful and additional funding is being provided to the initiative. New services are being developed in the central London area as well as expanding to other towns and cities where there is a significant rough sleeping
1298
population combined with mental illness. The expansion of this initiative is happening in partnership with the expansion of the rough sleeping initiative of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to which the Government gave an additional £20 million in June.
The rough sleepers programme is an excellent example of the partnership approach between statutory agencies and the voluntary sector. It is the type of approach that we welcome. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, about that also. But we should like to reach a situation in which we could ensure that there was no need for anyone to sleep rough.
Tackling the health of the homeless and the problem of the homeless is part of the Government's broad social agenda to tackle discrimination and disadvantage on a very broad front and to give people a decent quality of life in every aspect of their lives. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, for drawing your Lordships' attention to a significant aspect of that agenda. I look forward to further consideration in detail as our programmes develop.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I confirm that her Government are unable to match the last government's commitment to roll out nurse prescribing next year?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can merely repeat what I said. The current pilots in each NHS region on this question will show us the best way to do this. I am keen to see the existing scheme implemented nationally as quickly as is feasible.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.