Lords Sitting of 3 November 1998

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

Lord Brookman
David Keith Brookman, Esquire, having been created Baron Brookman, of Ebbw Vale in the County of Gwent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Paul and the Lord Davies of Coity.

Walking in Cities: Policy
2.42 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures to encourage walking in towns and cities, in accordance with the policies set out in the recently published Transport White Paper, can be implemented immediately.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, since the Government came to power they have encouraged local authorities to place provision for walking high on their list of transport priorities. Action to encourage walking forms the core of the forthcoming walking strategy that will be published shortly. Forthcoming guidance to local authorities on the production of the new local transport plans announced in the integrated transport White Paper will notify them that they should use the strategy to inform their transport planning and provision.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and lucid Answer. Does he agree that people are put off walking in towns and cities by the length of time they have to wait for traffic lights to turn green for pedestrians? Outside your Lordships' House one has to wait only 15 seconds, but outside the office of my noble friend the Minister one has to wait a minute to get across the road. Most people do not wait; they just jump the lights. Will the Minister include in the guidance to local authorities instructions to reduce the time that pedestrians have to wait so that they are less inclined to jump the red lights and risk being killed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the department does issue guidance to local authorities on timings at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. Research is currently being undertaken into the adequacy of that guidance. The general conclusion is likely to be that in most circumstances the current guidance is correct if it is followed by the local authorities.
In addition, there have been developments such as the introduction of the PUFFIN crossing. As your Lordships will know, a PUFFIN is an intelligent pelican.
134
A PUFFIN crossing is one which is capable of altering the length of time allowed for pedestrians to cross the road, particularly in difficult circumstances. Some 300 such crossings are in operation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, leaving aside the issue that a government encouraging a walking policy might smack slightly of the nanny state, will the noble Lord accept my congratulations on the decision to increase the fares on London Underground by up to three times the rate of inflation and on London buses by up to four times the rate of inflation? That is a sure fire way to get more people walking, at any rate in London. Is not that a clear-cut case of the Government putting the public's money where the Government's mouth is?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord asks several questions. The noble Lord's knowledge of nannies may be better than mine: my understanding is that nannies push you about rather than allow you to walk. We are now encouraging the liberating process of walking in our cities, which sometimes has not been easy.
On London Transport, the fares announced the other day have met certain criteria. We regret any increase in fares, but that is required to meet the operating costs of London Transport, the investment side of which was so sadly neglected by the party opposite when in government.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the walking strategy apply to escalators on the London Underground? Is the Minister aware that the escalator at Pimlico station has been out of order for months? There are 83 steps to negotiate to get out of the station. Is not that disgraceful?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as it happens, I am well aware that the escalator at Pimlico station is out of operation. We hope that the resources that London Transport has available for improving its stations will ensure that the situation is remedied as soon as possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is much more important to provide for those who cannot walk because they have been disabled in war or peace?
Lord Whitty:My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. It is also very important to improve access along pavements and into buildings for those who cannot walk and are disabled. The Government intend to ensure that that takes place and will seek to persuade local authorities to make such provision.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, following the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, does the Minister know whether, when the traffic lights at Talgarth Road and North End Road are working again, it will be possible to make sure that pedestrians can cross the road? I use the station there; I live on the other side of the road. It is virtually impossible to cross the road. One minute is certainly an underestimate of the time that one normally has to wait.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the concerns of the noble Lord. I have no doubt that the traffic control systems unit for London will look at those particular problems. I cannot say in detail that I have experienced the same problems, but no doubt we can look into the matter.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that owing to the increased volume of traffic in our major cities—I refer not only to London but also to the provinces—there is need for more zebra crossings? Will the noble Lord bring that need to the attention of the relevant authorities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that the increased volume of traffic in our cities causes many problems, one of which is that faced by pedestrians trying to get from one side of the road to the other. Whether all such circumstances are best met by zebra crossings is primarily a matter for the local authorities concerned. We shall be addressing such concerns in our new process for local transport planning.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Quirk: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: They had their turn a moment ago. Is my noble friend aware that one of the greatest deterrents to people walking is the illegal use by cyclists of footways? It is extremely dangerous. A number of people are injured, and even killed, by that illegal practice. Is my noble friend further aware that pedestrians have little redress against cyclists as they are not compelled to be insured? Will my noble friend pay some attention to what is an urgent problem?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought it would not be long before we got on to the subject of cycling. It is certainly the case that there are problems with cyclists using pavements and colliding with pedestrians in some of our towns, and, indeed, in some rural areas. However, I must emphasise again to the House, as I did only last week, that the vast majority of accidents to pedestrians are not caused by cyclists. They are caused by motorised transport, the proper control of which is a priority for this Government.

The Millennium Bug
2.50 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that the private sector has the structures in place to be millennium compliant by 1st January 2000.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, awareness of the year 2000 problem is now pretty universal among companies but latest research for Action 2000 shows
136
that action, particularly among firms employing between 10 and 250 people, is lagging behind. We will continue to encourage the private sector to make this a top priority.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can he, first, confirm recent newspaper reports which state that the bug-busting campaign launched by the Prime Minister in March 1997 aimed at medium-sized enterprises has attracted very few of them? Secondly, can he also confirm that the concern of Action 2000 leads to a demand for significantly greater funding from the Government? Will he confirm that concern and tell us whether that extra funding will be available?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the bug-busting campaign which was indeed announced by the Prime Minister is at a very early stage. As the noble Lord knows, £30 million has been allocated to it by the Department for Education and Employment. However, it really only started in July of this year and much of the early effort had to be spent in establishing satisfactory quality standards. Indeed, it would not have been any good introducing it en masse until we had done so.
As far as concerns the noble Lord's second question, I can confirm that I had seen newspaper reports about additional money for Action 2000. Money has, of course, already been increased for the latter, and if any further applications for money come to us we will consider them sympathetically.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware of what I can only describe as a scam being carried out by a very well-known company, Pitney Bowes, which provides franking machines to industry and commerce? The company is persuading customers to change their franking machines, ostensibly under existing contracts, in order to safeguard them from the year 2000 bug and involving them in a five-year contract for £16,000 when a new machine can be bought for £1,300. Can the Minister tell the House what the Department of Trade and Industry is doing to prevent such scams and what redress customers have in such circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Countess has made a very serious allegation about which I had not heard. The word "scam" sounds to me as indicating something illegal as well as something commercially undesirable. I hope that the noble Countess will perhaps discuss the matter with me. We can certainly talk to the appropriate authorities.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Council of Europe has called on the OECD to organise an international test day for millennium compliance? Would my noble friend support such a test day being organised on an international scale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I had heard suggestions about a test day. However, I do not

137
think that it would be appropriate, nor does Action 2000 believe that it would be appropriate. Indeed, there are too many different kinds of problems, and businesses and individuals are at far too many different stages of development of their responses to the millennium bug problem for any particular day to be appropriate.
In a sense, there will be a compulsory test day on 9th September next year because many computers are programmed to cause trouble on the 9th day of the 9th month of 1999. Therefore, on that day we will have some forecast of what might happen at the end of that year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a particularly difficult aspect of the problem is embedded chips? Will the Government give special advice and guidance to smaller firms to deal with the problem, which can be most costly to resolve?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. Problems with the real-time clocks are relatively easy to deal with, and problems with bios-clocks are slightly more difficult to deal with. However, problems with embedded chips—let us say, to take an extreme example, in underwater survey equipment—are extraordinarily difficult to deal with because in many cases, particularly with smaller items of equipment, the cost of finding and replacing the faulty embedded chip would be greater than the cost of the material itself. That is the kind of advice which Action 2000 is giving to small and medium-sized enterprises. Indeed, its hotline is receiving 10,000 requests a week.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, do the Government have any plans about helping ordinary consumers in their homes as regards this millennium bug? It is not only large organisations, government departments and small and medium-sized firms which will be affected; indeed, there is an awful lot of household equipment involved. One is aware of the fact that this will happen in the middle of winter and one wonders about central heating systems for the elderly, refrigeration plant, and so on. Is there any advice available in that respect? Those of us who normally take out home insurance policies are now beginning to notice information about this in the small print which states that such companies will not be responsible. Therefore, do the Government have any plans for guidance in that regard?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is much wild talk about equipment in the home—not, I hasten to say, from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Indeed, people are talking as if it would be a tragedy if a toaster did not work on 1st January 2000. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is quite right to mention more complicated equipment, such as central heating systems. Advice is indeed available for individuals in that respect. While responding to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may commend the very lengthy and informative article in the Sunday Times this week which included such advice for individual households as well as for businesses.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on reading the latest government report on the problems that they face with the millennium bug, does the Minister recognise that it is clear that local authorities will fail to meet the target; that the MoD is having to abandon important systems because it cannot meet the target; and, indeed, that there will be immense disruption in the private sector? Do not the Government consider that it is part of their duty to the public as a whole to put systems in place to ensure that, whenever such disruption occurs, the public are protected from it as far as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords; we have always done so. Within three weeks of coming into office the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set in place a monitoring system in the public sector exactly because, as the noble Lord said, we recognise that there is an interface between the public and the private sector. Throughout the past 18 months we have given priority in the public sector to business-critical systems—in other words, those systems which will also affect the private sector. Classic examples of that would be if there were power failures, for example, which would affect everyone, both in the private and the public sector. Another example would be a breakdown in the supply chain where people who have nothing wrong with their own systems find themselves in trouble because their suppliers or their customers are not compliant. I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question, but I do not agree that the Government have been negligent in tackling the problem.

Dover House: Proposals
2.58 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their most recent proposals for the future of Dover House in Whitehall.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, my right honourable friend is considering the likely demand for London accommodation following devolution next May. The Government will announce their conclusions in due course.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, will the Minister accept that Dover House has become the flagship of Scotland's interests within the United Kingdom and that it gives Scotland the opportunity and facilities for a strong voice within central government? Further, can the noble Lord dispel any rumours that the Prime Minister has other plans for it?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Government are so reluctant to tell us whether or not Scotland will be allowed to continue to have an interest in Dover House? Many of the elements that will most affect the future

139
prosperity and well-being of Scotland will remain reserved to the Westminster Parliament and there will have to be a great deal of activity between Scotland and London on economic and other matters. Therefore, it is important that this flagship building continues to exist. Will the Government give us some assurance on the matter now?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, one of the main determinants of accommodation needs following devolution will be the view that the Scottish executive takes about its requirements in London in liaising with UK Ministers. That can clearly be decided only after we have a Scottish parliament and a Scottish executive in place. To a large extent it will be up to them to determine their accommodation needs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the Scottish parliament's views will be taken into account to a greater extent than those of other people, for example, the Prime Minister?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in coming to a view on meeting satisfactorily and adequately the accommodation needs in London of those who will represent Scottish interests, two basic matters will need to be taken into account: the requirements of the Secretary of State for Scotland; and the requirements of the Scottish executive.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that Dover House is a modest size compared with other government offices in London, yet this prestigious building is situated in exactly the right place to represent Scottish interests in London. It is inconceivable that the Government should hand over this building to another ministry. Will the noble Lord go a little further than he has already in confirming that that will not happen?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in this case small is beautiful and size does not matter. The precise accommodation needs of the Secretary of State and, I imagine, the Scottish Law Officer in London, and of the executive will be assessed. Those needs can be appreciated properly only once devolution is in place. Until devolution is in place, Dover House will remain as the Scottish Office.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it the Minister's assumption that after devolution Scottish interests will require more or less office accommodation in London?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not make any assumption about the accommodation requirements of the Scottish Office and of those who will represent Scottish interests after devolution. That is a matter for the Scottish executive.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not well known that during her time as Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, cast covetous eyes on Dover
140
House in foreseeing a longer tenure in office than was the case? Why is the Minister so coy in his reference to the Prime Minister and his wife casting equally covetous glances at Dover House? It seems to me an admirable place in which to put a Prime Minister and possibly, in due course, a president.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as regards the reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that may have been the scourge of Dover House. I am not aware of the present Prime Minister casting any covetous eyes on Dover House. As I said, Dover House is the London base for the Scottish Office. That will remain the position certainly until devolution. It is appropriate that the accommodation requirements of the then Secretary of State and the Scottish executive are then reviewed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, cast covetous eyes on Dover House? Does the noble Lord recall George Robertson's phrase with regard to devolution; namely, that it would kill the nationalists stone dead? But the fact is they are alive and kicking. Will he therefore ensure that Dover House continues to be used by the Scottish Office, just in case at some time in the future Mr. Robertson has to eat his words in a big way and it is required by Scotland as the home of the Scottish ambassador to the Court of St. James?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, never fails to entertain us but that is one of his wilder flights of fancy.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the strong defence of the Union by the Secretary of State for Scotland made yesterday will be enhanced if Dover House is retained to represent Scotland's interests within the United Kingdom?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, much as I value and appreciate the opportunity of working in Dover House, I think that the robust defence of the Union does not depend upon a building.

Railway Land: Redevelopment
3.5 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that, following the moratorium on the sale of former railway land recently announced, adequate consultation is taking place between Rail Properties Ltd and local authorities and others concerning the redevelopment of suitable sites for future railway use.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government announced in July in the White Paper on the future of transport that the British Railways Board was suspending land sales while it conducted an audit of the remaining sites. As part of this review, the British Railways Board has consulted a wide range of transport operators, local

141
authorities and other organisations on the criteria to be applied for establishing sites which have a realistic prospect of use for transport purposes in the foreseeable future.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that several potential sites belonging to British Rail which have been earmarked for possible future railway use are still being actively promoted by Rail Properties Ltd for other non-railway schemes? Bearing in mind that the railway industry and interested local authorities might have a better idea of their future needs than those charged with site disposal, does the Minister agree that Rail Properties should be encouraged to co-operate more fully with interested parties with a view to returning suitable sites to rail use?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the review that I have just mentioned requires the British Railways Board to identify those sites which might be of use for railway or other transport purposes. It would appear that probably the bulk of the sites would not fall within that category, but as regards those that do, consultation would be required with local authorities and transport operators if there were any proposition to dispose of them. However, the British Railways Board has a responsibility to dispose of that land which is not useful for those purposes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in order that these sites are put to the best future use for local people, will the Government give consideration to allowing local authorities to have the first option, provided the price is right?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at present if the British Railways Board sells sites it is supposed to sell them at market value. Local authorities which can see some benefit in acquiring the land are considered as serious purchasers. However, the bulk of the remaining British Railways Board property is of a relatively small size and is unlikely to be a major factor in local authorities' development plans.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that all this information which he has helpfully given to the House this afternoon is contained in a report which has recently been submitted to his department by the British Railways Board? Will he consider publishing that as I believe it contains a list of every property which is still in British Rail's hands and that would enable colleagues in the industry and local authorities to identify for themselves what is available and what they may wish to purchase?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the chairman of the British Railways Board has recently submitted a report to the Deputy Prime Minister which sets out the general approach. It does not contain the full list of British Railways Board properties, although that will become available. Clearly my colleagues will give consideration to the question of whether it should be published at some point. However, we are not at that point yet.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, does the Minister agree it is important that aggregates are transported to London and other cities by train rather than by road and that it is important to keep the storage facilities for aggregates near railway depots rather than losing that land to building sites, which would result in lorries transporting aggregates? It is important to keep aggregate sources next to railway depots.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the general point made by the noble Viscount. Indeed, it is very much part of our policy that some of the freight which is currently transported by road should be returned to rail freight. The recent history of the rail freight industry is encouraging in that respect. As regards the sites, noble Lords will recognise that the bulk of the sites referred to are not British Rail Board sites; they are Railtrack sites. Railtrack has certain constraints on the disposal of those sites, if usable for such purposes.

Business
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; namely, the Pre-Budget Statement. Following that, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the situation in Iraq.

Scotland Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Reserved matters]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) moved Amendment No. 206X:
Page 67, line 43, at end insert (", or
(c) any office in the Scottish Administration.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to make it clear that the reservation of the Crown in Part I of Schedule 5 does not have the effect of reserving the offices in the Scottish administration. It has always been intended that the Scottish parliament should have the ability to be able to amend the functions of office holders who comprise part of the Scottish administration and confer new functions upon them. This amendment ensures that Part I of the schedule should not have the effect of preventing the parliament from doing that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 206Y:
Page 68, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments would reserve legislative competence over the interception of communications while devolving executive competence to the Scottish administration. They also make clear that the scope of the reservation of "interception of communications" does not include intrusive surveillance techniques.
The Bill at present provides for the devolution of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, to the extent that it relates to the prevention or detection of serious crime. This will have two main consequences. First, the Scottish executive will assume the Secretary of State's current power to authorise interception of telephone calls or mail for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. That squares with the fact that policing and crime prevention are devolved and it would be anomalous if the Scottish police had to go to a UK government Minister for interception warrants against criminals operating in Scotland.
The second consequence is that the Scottish parliament will be able to legislate to amend the Interception of Communications Act, but only where that interception is necessary to prevent or detect serious crime in Scotland. On reflection, we believe that there would be practical problems in legislating separately on that sub-set of interception issues.
The Interception of Communications Act 1985 is in need of updating and work to replace it is under way. That work has underlined the importance of having a coherent interception policy throughout the UK. If different arrangements were to apply in different parts of the country in relation to serious crime interceptions it could undermine the interception policy and police operations in the remainder of the UK, especially by revealing some of the detailed techniques which are used.
The basis of the existing policy is sound. Devolution must ensure that it is the Scottish First Minister, rather than a Minister of the UK Government, who has responsibility for authorising interception for serious criminals in Scotland and is answerable to the Scottish parliament for that work. But an approach which might fragment the UK-wide legislation on this sensitive subject would be very difficult to operate in practice without prejudicing police operations and the fight against serious crime.
The amendments therefore reserve interception legislation. But we shall use the power in Clause 59 of the Bill to transfer to Scottish Ministers the important executive responsibility for authorising interception in serious criminal cases in Scotland. They alone will have the power to give such authority in such cases, and they will be answerable to the Scottish parliament.
In this way the Scottish parliament will retain a proper measure of control over interception policy in Scotland. There is considerable scope for Scottish
144
Ministers to establish different policies on interception related to serious crime without devolving legislative powers. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how appropriate it is that the noble Baroness has the opportunity to explain these sensitive matters to the House. She has done so clearly.
I well understand the reason why the Government have brought forward these amendments, and I should not wish to be associated with any suggestion that devolution should in any way complicate or frustrate the attempts that must be constantly made to fight cross-Border crime. The noble Baroness has provided a full justification for these changes.
On a point of interest relating to Amendment No. 206Y, which part of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 reserves the various functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters? It is not entirely clear to me.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am pleased that it was not clear to the noble and learned Lord, because it was not clear to me either. I inquired about the matter and have been advised that it is the very first part, namely the Crown, which covers the three agencies named.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert—
(" . Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the Parliament from passing a Bill authorising the Scottish Executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether or not Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208 standing in my name.
The purpose of the amendments may initially be perplexing to some noble Lords. Their terms are clearly inconsistent. They address from different perspectives the issue of whether or not it would be competent for the Scottish executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom. Clearly, I shall not invite the House to accept both amendments. My choice as to which one will depend on the Minister's reply.
This matter was debated in Committee on 21st July. On that occasion a number of amendments dealt with the issue of referendums or polls. The discussion addressed the basic question of whether it would be competent for the parliament to hold referendums before turning to the secondary, albeit important, issue of whether it would be competent to hold a poll dealing with the issue of independence. The initial amendment sought to explore whether it was necessary for the parliament to be given express power as part of its legislative competence to enable it to pass Acts of the

145
Scottish parliament authorising such referendums and polls. Section 7 of the Government of Wales Act gives the assembly power to hold polls.
As regards the competence of a referendum on independence, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dealt with the matter in his reply. He said:
"I wish the Committee to be in no doubt that as the Bill stands the Scottish parliament will not be able to legislate to hold a referendum on independence as the union of the kingdoms is already a reserved matter under Schedule 5".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 854.]
He suggested that explicit reference along the lines of an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rowallan was not needed. The noble Lord went on to say:
"In determining what relates to a reserved matter, the Government amendments tabled to Clause 28 are of help here, because they indicate that we must look at the purpose of what is being done. If the parliament passed an Act to hold a referendum about whether the Union should continue, it would thus clearly be legislating in relation to the reserved matter of the Union. Any such Act would be about the continuation of the Union and it would therefore be beyond the parliament's competence and would not be law".— [Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 854.]
He went on to give certain reasons for the view which he had expressed.
I read with care what the noble Lord said on that occasion, particularly in view of the fact that since then the Scottish National Party, I think in an interim policy document issued since July, and certainly in speeches made by leading members, has reiterated its intention to hold such a referendum in the event that the party forms the Scottish executive, or part of it. Even if it were not in such a position, there would be nothing to prevent it bringing forward a Bill and seeking to have it enacted by the Scottish parliament.
When the matter was debated in July, I expressed concern that, notwithstanding the views clearly and fairly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, it might still be possible to construct an argument in a court of law that it would be competent for the Scottish executive to hold a referendum touching upon or involving the issue of independence. I concede that such a referendum would be held not to obtain a vote that would bind the parliament or the Scottish executive but for the purpose of informing both those bodies of the thinking of the Scottish people on this issue. I believe that it could be successfully argued—and certainly that it could be argued in a rational way in a court of law—that it would be of assistance to the Scottish parliament and the executive to be aware of what Scottish people think on the issue to assist them in the discharge of other statutory duties which lie well within their executive and legislative competence.
In developing that argument on that occasion I made reference to the fact that, without any statutory authority, the Strathclyde Regional Council had on its own initiative held a referendum as to whether the water supply industry in Scotland should be privatised. I also referred to the fact that the Grampian Regional Council had made a financial contribution to the Scottish constitutional convention, albeit that the work of the convention touched on issues which were not within the direct statutory responsibilities of the local authority.
Since the matter was last debated in this House, the Supreme Court in Canada has issued a judgment in a very important and interesting case involving the consequences of a referendum in Quebec. The decision was dated 20th August this year and followed a reference by the governor, acting in council, posing certain questions for the Canadian Supreme Court. Against the background that it was held that the referendum held by the Quebec authorities in no sense bound the other members of the federation and had no binding effect, there is an interesting discussion as to how the expression of opinion which the referendum threw up placed upon the other parties to the federation a duty to negotiate in a responsible manner as to whether it would be appropriate for Quebec to receive its independence.
I can foresee that if, many years down the line, such a referendum were to be held in Scotland, reference might be made to that authority. As we have discussed on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comes to deliberate on how devolution issues should be resolved, it is anticipated that they will look to the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth for assistance on these matters.
As far as the practicalities of having a referendum are concerned, I believe that I am at one with the Government. I understand that the Government are opposed to a referendum being held. Their view is that it would be incompetent for that to happen under the present terms of the Bill. I agree. If the majority of the Scottish people wish to seek independence—and I believe that they certainly do not—they could make that clear by voting in a general election for sufficient numbers of members of the SNP. There is little doubt that, were that to happen, negotiations of the type referred to in the Canadian case might well begin.
Where I and the Government Benches differ is as to whether the matter should be clarified further on the face of the Bill. Time and again in our debates on the Bill there have been discussions as to whether some of the clauses are unnecessary and whether some of the amendments proposed are unnecessary and would serve to increase the length of an already complicated and detailed Bill.
If the second of my amendments were to be accepted by the Government, I believe that it would unequivocally prevent any attempt by either the Scottish executive or the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum unless it had been sanctioned by this Parliament. That is, therefore, the amendment which I favour, and I hope that it would be accepted. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 207.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I believe that these two paradoxical amendments raise an important issue and that one of them should be on the face of the Bill. It is always important to reaffirm that Scotland has placed its sovereignty voluntarily in the United Kingdom and in this Parliament. The Bill is entirely in keeping with that constitutional theory. The Bill is being enacted because the people of Scotland have requested—or perhaps demanded—the return of

147
some de facto sovereignty in the form of a parliament with powers devolved from this United Kingdom Parliament.
The issue of power to hold a plebiscite concerning secession from the United Kingdom is also central to that constitutional theory. The power must be lodged overtly somewhere. For the Bill to be silent on the issue, as if it would just go away, could be seen as confirmation that Scotland has been annexed on a de facto basis and that Scotland is not a voluntary member of the United Kingdom.
The scheme of devolution before us lays down that such constitutional issues are reserved matters and that it would be for the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with any demand for secession from the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland should be allowed to know—and should be under no illusion about the matter—that this is an issue which they ought to take up with their Westminster MPs in the future. I support Amendment No. 208, which clarifies the position as I have described it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the Liberal Party we do think for ourselves occasionally. I regard these contradictory amendments as an extraordinary device in keeping with the attitude that the Conservative Front Bench has adopted throughout the debate of discussing everything ad nauseam. This is a Bill to devolve power to a Scottish parliament to look after its own affairs within the context, and with the advantages, of belonging to the United Kingdom. Why on earth we prolong this discussion, with extra contradictory amendments brought forward, I do not know. The Government have stated quite clearly that a referendum put forward by the Scottish parliament would not be legal and proper.
The situation in Quebec was quite clear. The referendum put forward by the Québécois Party achieved 49 per cent. support. The referendum more or less said, "Do you believe in an independent Quebec which will be rich beyond belief?" Its terms were such that any non-thinking person would vote immediately for it. There is no point in saying that a party such as the SNP would be able to bring forward a referendum. That is made clear in the Bill. I support the Government's attitude. The amendment will do nothing but stir up trouble.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon has been candid about these two amendments. I shall try to be as loyal and as tactful as possible in my comments on this situation.
The most important provision in this Bill is to be found in paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5:
"The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England".
148
Clearly, Amendment No. 207 is in conflict with that concept. Amendment No. 208 can be said to be consistent with it but, I believe, is unnecessary bearing in mind the clear, emphatic wording of paragraph 1(b).
I therefore assume, in favour of my noble friends on the Front Bench, that these two amendments have been tabled in order that noble Lords in every part of your Lordships' House can express their views on the matter but come to the conclusion that the union of the United Kingdom must be upheld.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend, who is very wise on these matters, has expressed his view. My noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has expressed a similar view in different terms. With great respect to the noble Lords, they are forgetting how it will be determined whether something is or is not competent in this parliament. They are assuming that it will be like Westminster. It will not be.
The Scottish National Party is intending, we understand, to use the Holyrood parliament, not the Westminster Parliament, as the locus for continuing to attempt to persuade the people of Scotland that they will do best if they leave the United Kingdom. The locus for this discussion will be the Holyrood parliament. We are not even sure whether the Scottish National Party will be putting up any candidates for Westminster at the next general election. I do not think it has decided that as yet.
It is absolutely essential that the Bill should be crystal clear on this matter. If it is not crystal clear, it will be possible for the Scottish National Party majority—even a majority made up with other members of the Scottish parliament—to decide to legislate for a referendum. Whether or not that is within its competence under the terms of the Bill as it stands, it becomes a devolution issue. In the process there will be a long argument—it may last several months or perhaps a year—as to whether it will be competent to do that. During that time the Scottish National Party will have a marvellous opportunity to stir up discontent: to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the Holyrood parliament is not able to put forward their interests in deciding the future of Scotland.
This is the time when the Government should make it clear, in the kind of words in Amendment No. 208, that that is not within the parliament's competence. Then the matter cannot proceed. It is really important. To say amiably that because the constitution is reserved to Westminster this will not occur, is simply not realistic. We are not facing up to the facts. People will not change the way in which they behave because of the new parliament. They will continue to behave in a political way. I can foresee that that could happen.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I believe that the Bill is entirely clear. There is no ambiguity about where power lies. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said clearly that, while there are no limitations on the powers of the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish parliament is limited by this Bill which will become an Act. Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 makes absolutely clear where the powers lie, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out.

149
Whatever is written down, the Scottish National Party will behave politically whether or not we pass the amendment. If it wants to behave politically, then passing or not passing the amendment is entirely beside the point. There is no ambiguity. The Scotland Act will be clear as to where the power lies and any Bill to hold such a referendum will be ultra vires.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I had hoped that we had succeeded in Committee in clarifying that, under the Bill as drafted, the Scottish parliament will not be able to legislate to hold a referendum on independence because the union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter. It is not only the constitution that is reserved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, observed; it is absolutely explicit in paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 that,
"the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England",
is reserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton reminded us.
So that is it. I shall try once more to explain the position and apologise to the House that what I am about to say will unavoidably be somewhat repetitious. An explicit reference on the lines proposed by Amendment No. 208 is simply not needed. In determining what relates to a reserved matter, Clause 28, as amended in Committee, indicates that one must look at the purpose of what is being done—and that has been accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
If the parliament passed an Act to hold a referendum about whether the Union should continue, it would clearly be legislating in relation to the reserved matter of the union. It is as crystal clear as that. Any such Act would be about the continuation of the union; it would therefore be beyond the competence of the parliament and would not be law. The position is quite clear on this point. Amendment No. 208 is absolutely unnecessary.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would it be competent for the parliament to discuss the question of the independence of Scotland from the Union?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it would be possible to discuss that. That is not dealt with in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The amendment refers to passing a Bill and therefore limits itself to legislative competence. The legislative competence is already taken up in the terms of Schedule 5 and Clause 28. We are on the narrow point of legislative competence and not whether the parliament can or should discuss the matter of independence. That is a totally different matter and beyond the scope of the amendment.
While I appreciate the helpful way in which the noble and learned Lord has explained why he has tabled what are, as he recognised, two contradictory amendments, I do not think there is any means by which we can get away from the fact that we are dealing with an issue that is clear in the Bill. There is absolutely no need for this
150
further attempt allegedly to make it clear. I should have thought that the great strength of the Bill is the very simple phrase in Schedule 5 dealing with the reserved matters:
"the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England".
There can be nothing more explicit or clearer than that.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the powers of the executive. But the powers of the executive are linked to the legislative competence of the parliament. It would not be within the competence of the executive to incur expenditure on a referendum on independence; nor would it be within the legislative competence of the parliament to confer such a power on it. So I am still at a loss to understand the point on Report as I was at a loss to understand the point in Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am sorry if the Minister is at a loss because the fault is entirely mine. I shall endeavour to explain a little more fully why I have this concern, and in doing so, I shall, like my noble friend Lord Renton, be as loyal and tactful as I can. However, I regret to say that on this occasion I part company from him as to whether the Bill is quite as clear as he suggests that it is. It is of course no surprise to have differing views on these matters from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure that the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was made in jest, and I take it in that spirit.
The crux of the matter is the new provision of Clause 28(3), which was introduced in Committee. It states:
"For the purposes of this section, the question whether a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament relates to a reserved matter is to be determined, subject to subsection (4)"—
that does not concern us—
"by reference to the purpose of the provision".
If it is competent, as the Minister has accepted, for the Scottish parliament to debate the question of independence, one then assumes that it would be competent for it to discuss the question in a committee to which people came to give evidence, as covered by the provision in Clause 23.
If it is competent for the parliament to discuss the matter, would it not be possible to pass an Act of the Scottish parliament along the lines, "Because we are going to discuss the question of independence, we wish to know whether the people of Scotland know about it in order to inform our discussions. We fully accept that we do not have the competence to pass an Act which would bring about independence. We fully accept that that is a reserved matter under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. But in so far as we are entitled to discuss the matter, we wish to be seized with knowledge of what the Scottish people think about the matter".
That seems to be the reasoning which lay behind Strathclyde Regional Council's decision to hold its referendum because there can be no doubt that the

151
power to regulate the water supply industry and to decide whether or not to privatise it lay with the United Kingdom Government and indeed with this Parliament.
Both today and on a previous occasion the Minister has not responded to my two well-known examples. He may be correct when he says that he does not fully understand the concern I have raised but clearly that concern is shared by other Members of the House. Therefore, while I do not intend to press Amendment No. 207 to a vote, I shall seek to take the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 208. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert—
(" . It shall not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to pass a Bill authorising the Scottish Executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether or not Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 208) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 167.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Aldington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Barber, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Higgins, L.

Berners, B.

Holderness, L.

Brentford, V.

Hothfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kenyon, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cadman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Knollys, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dartmouth, E.

McConnell, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Downshire, M.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montrose, D.

Erne, E.

Mountevans, L.

152

Mountgarret, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Munster, E.

Sandys, L.

Nelson, E.

Savile, L.

Newall, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Northesk, E.

Sempill, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Sharples, B.

Palumbo, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Stair, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Swinfen, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Quinton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Waddington, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Warnock, B.

Rees, L.

Westbury, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Gainsborough, E.

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Geraint, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gilbert, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Alli, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amos, B.

Goodhart, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Annan, L.

Goudie, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Barnett, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hardie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bethell, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Haskel, L.

Blease, L.

Hayman, B.

Borrie, L.

Headfort, M.

Brightman, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Calverley, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ilchester, E.

Carrick, E.

Islwyn, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Christopher, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kintore, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Laming, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McCarthy, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dixon, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

153

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shannon, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Molloy, L.

Simon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Slim, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Newby, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Orme, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Paul, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Peston, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thornton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thurso, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

Puttnam, L.

Uddin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Varley, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Redesdale, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitty, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Serota, B.

Winston, L.

Sewel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before we move to the pre-Budget Statement, I should like to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Pre-Budget Statement
3.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Pre-Budget Report. The Statement is as follows:
"In this year's Pre-Budget Report we seek to steer a course of stability amid a world economic downturn. We set in place measures to increase productivity and provide support for enterprise. We introduce new measures to make work pay for all our people and we show how we will invest in health, education and our infrastructure to provide the modern services on which people rely, in each case long-term decisions that will equip our country for the future.
"The background to this report is the global downturn, which started in Asia and which has reverberated throughout every continent. It has not only shifted the balance of risks in the world economy from fears about inflation to fears about growth but has forced every country, every continent, every
154
international financial institution to cut their estimates for growth. World trade growth is set to fall by two thirds. Forecasts for world growth as a whole have now been virtually halved. One quarter of the world is in recession. And my objective, the objective for Britain, is that in this uncertain world Britain not only steers a stable course but that, by building up our long-term strength, is more than equal to any and every challenge the global economy presents.
"Because in the last 18 months British inflation has been brought down to its target of 2.5 per cent. and because Britain has set in place a new long-term monetary framework, with the independence of the Bank of England, Britain is better placed than in the past to face these global difficulties, and because, too, Britain has tackled its structural deficit in the public finances we are more able to steer that stable course.
"But, as all forecasts round the world have made clear, there is acute uncertainty about the eventual outcome of the global financial instability. So we are conscious of the balance of risks—the risk on the one hand of a sharper slowdown in the world economy as a result of instability and its effect on confidence, the risk on the other that inflationary pressures might persist.
"The Pre-Budget Report is set with this firmly in mind, no denial of short-term difficulties, no diversion from policies for long-term strength, and our challenge in the year ahead is to strengthen the three essential foundations for that long-term strength and success.
"First, Britain now has, for the first time, a consistent long-term framework for both monetary and fiscal policy—one that has an inbuilt capacity to respond credibly to short-term pressures and one from which we will not be deflected.
"Secondly, with business, we are putting in place a strategy to tackle a fundamental long-term economic weakness, the 40 per cent. productivity gap with our most successful competitors—and these measures include investment in education and innovation and new encouragement for enterprise and competition and, thirdly, with our Welfare-to-Work programme and by ensuring that work pays we are extending opportunity to all, creating a Britain where no one is excluded and everyone has a contribution to make, a Britain that is both enterprising and fair.
"First, the foundation of long-term economic stability. Official figures now show that by spring 1997, with consumer spending growing at an unsustainable pace, inflation was heading way above the country's 2.5 per cent. target to twice that of our competitors, 4 per cent. and above, and that Britain was set to repeat the boom-bust cycle that has led to 15 per cent. interest rates for a whole year in 1990.
"Because immediate action was taken—making the Bank of England independent and tackling the inflationary pressures—inflation is today at our target of 2.5 per cent., and I can announce that for future years our forecast is that it will stay on target. As a result, Britain's long-term interest rates have come

155
down from over 7 per cent. to 5 per cent.; the differential between Britain and Germany has narrowed by nearly 2 per cent.; and long-term interest rates are now the lowest for 35 years, the lowest since Britain's boom-bust cycle became entrenched. And because Britain has brought inflation under control it has been possible, as the world has turned downwards, for interest rates to be able to respond more quickly and in a more forward-looking way than in past British economic cycles.
"In the previous economic cycle, interest rates remained in double figures for over four years. In contrast, the Bank of England has already been able to reduce interest rates to respond to a changed international environment.
"Long-term monetary stability is a pre-condition of economic success and I reaffirm my support for the Bank of England's independence—its remit and membership—and I do not believe that any political party, putting the long term interests of Britain first, will, on reflection, bring party politics and short-termism back into interest rate decisions.
"It is also because Britain now has a new long-term fiscal framework—with clear disciplines set out in the Code for Fiscal Stability that we are laying before Parliament today—that, as world growth slows, fiscal policy is able to make its contribution to stability and future growth in Britain. The official figures published today confirm that in our first year we cut the budget deficit from £28 billion to £8 billion. This tightening has continued throughout our second year, a total fiscal tightening in two years of 3¾ per cent. of national income. So fiscal policy has played its part with interest rate policy in tackling inflationary pressures.
"I can tell the House that, because we have concentrated on our priorities and cut waste, spending will be a total of £2 billion below the ceilings we inherited.
"As a result, our current budget this year is expected to be £5.5 billion in surplus, and what was prudently projected to be net borrowing of £1 billion is now expected to be a debt repayment of £1.5 billion.
"The golden rule is that, over the cycle, we balance the current budget, in other words on current spending that we eliminate the structural deficit. I can report to the House that because of the tough action we have taken since we came to government this is exactly what we are now achieving.
"Having broken with short-termism and created, for the long term, a stable monetary and fiscal framework, with an inbuilt capacity to be more responsive to the economic cycle, fiscal and monetary policy can both together contribute to stability and growth in the coming years.
"My forecast for 1999—of 1 to 1½ per cent. growth for 1999—will see Britain steering a stable course even when one quarter of the world is in recession. And as the economy returns to its sustainable
156
growth path, we expect growth in 2000 to be between 2¼ per cent. and 2¾ per cent. And in 2001 between 2¾ per cent. and 3¼ per cent.
"It is because we are cautious about the balance of risks in the economy that we have based public finance forecasts on deliberately more prudent assumptions than before. First, our public finances are planned on an estimate of 2¼ per cent. trend rate of growth, one quarter per cent. lower than the assumption that we inherited. Secondly, our forecasts have revised downwards the ratio of VAT receipts to projected consumer spending, reducing estimated revenues by nearly £4 billion over the next five years. Thirdly, revenues from tackling fraud have been set at a more cautious level than in the last Parliament. Fourthly, we have discontinued the imprudent practice of assuming revenues from privatisations that have not even been agreed.
"In each case our assumptions have been independently audited by the National Audit Office. And, because of the experience of the early 1990s, we have adopted a more prudent approach to forecasting income tax and corporation tax revenues, including a cautious estimate of revenue from self-assessment. So, even after making most prudent assumptions and then taking into account the world downturn, we meet our first rule; to balance our current budget over the cycle.
"We expect the current surplus to be £1 billion next near, £3 billion in 2000–2001, £8 billion the year after that, £10 billion and £11 billion in the two years to follow. For the same years, net borrowing is expected to be £4 billion and successively £5 billion, £2 billion, £2 billion and £1 billion figures better in every year of this Parliament than in any year of the last Parliament—an estimated current surplus for the coming five years of £33 billion, a margin that shows that we are equipped to cope with further uncertainties. This £33 billion contrasts with, under the last government, a deficit of £149 billion over the economic cycle, as national debt doubled.
"Our second rule, the sustainable investment rule, requires that, as we borrow for investment, debt is set at a prudent and stable level. In the last year of the last government, that debt ratio was 45 per cent. In the next three years, to meet the needs of a modern infrastructure, public investment will double. As a result of our overall prudence, debt as a proportion of GDP is set to fall below 40 per cent. to 39 per cent. next year, to 38 per cent. and then to 36½ per cent. And Members who take a special interest in the Maastricht criteria will want to know that in each year of the next five years Britain is comfortably within the Maastricht guidelines.
"Long-term economic stability, from which we will not be diverted, is the foundation for future success. But we will only achieve our long-term goals for growth and employment through an even more radical modernisation of our economic policy in favour of opportunity, enterprise and work.

157
"We need to push ahead with modernisation in every area—improving productivity, expanding opportunity and investing in our future. And in every one of these areas our economic policy is based on getting the best out of all our people and all their potential; in other words, on maximising economic opportunity for all. What makes for a good economy also makes for a good society; one that is fair and cohesive.
"So I now turn to the first conclusions from the review we have conducted with British business into removing the barriers to productivity. As our seminars with business have revealed, the only way for Britain to be at the forefront of the new knowledge-based economies of the future is by modern policies for education, employee participation, small business development and science and innovation.
"Our first recommendations concern the quality of education. With our £19 billion investment in educational reform, we have set out demanding targets for literacy, numeracy, teaching standards and qualifications. And with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment's announcement today of a £250 million investment in a new traineeship programme for teenagers, we have now made it possible for every young person, after 16, to stay on in part-time or full-time education, to get qualifications and to have the opportunity of a job. But to meet the productivity challenge we must do far more to encourage the ambitions of all our children, not least by bringing the world of education and the world of work into closer contact.
"Over the next year we plan to enlist business leaders to take the world of work and business into our classrooms. And to encourage businesses to offer expertise and management to help our schools and colleges, I can announce that the Budget will allow businesses to claim tax relief when they second staff to schools and colleges. But as our productivity discussions with business have also revealed, Britain can do more to remove the barriers to opportunity and to ambition.
"The opportunity not just to acquire the best skills but the ambition to work your way up and use your creative talents, the ambition to start and build a successful business, the ambition to see the firm in which you work succeed and you succeed with it.
"Today, only a fraction of British employees and an even smaller minority of those outside senior management own shares in the companies that they work in and yet the evidence is that employee commitment is a vital strength for companies competing and succeeding in the global economy. And I want, through targeted tax reform, to reward long-term commitment by employees and I want to remove, once and for all, the old 'them and us' culture in British industry. I want to encourage the new enterprise culture of teamwork in which everyone contributes and everyone benefits from success. So, in the Budget we will make it easier for all
158
employees—and not just a few—to become stakeholders in their company. I want to double the number of firms in which all employees have the opportunity to own shares.
"Many employees already hold shares through their pension funds. So I will propose to pensions funds and other institutions that they should provide better and more direct public information to their members and investors.
"In future, more of our wealth and jobs will come from small and growing businesses. In just 18 months we have announced cuts in the rate of corporation tax on large companies twice to 30 pence, and for small companies twice to 20 pence—its lowest level ever.
"In the Budget we will consider a further tax reduction for small businesses. In particular we will consider converting the temporary investment allowance we introduced last year into a permanent tax cut. But I have in mind a bigger reform to cut the burden of tax and red tape. Small businesses getting started and growing lack not only the resources to pay tax but the back-up to administer national insurance, income tax, their VAT payments and their payroll systems.
"From April 1999, the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency will be merged. And we propose to roll out, on a nationwide basis, a new comprehensive service for new businesses, helping replace time consuming bookkeeping by offering a one stop advice service administered by a national helpline, backed up by local offices. So from now on every department of government will have an obligation to encourage enterprise and entrepreneurs.
"And I can confirm to businesses also that we will re-examine planning regulations and building control to identify barriers to productivity and job creation and how the planning system can be speeded up in Britain to help us emulate the success of hi-tech clusters and corridors like America's Silicon Valley.
"Access to bank finance is critical to the success of every single small business. I have therefore asked the banks to work with Mr. Don Cruickshank to assess what steps can be taken more effectively to serve the needs of businesses in the economy.
"And to open up and enhance competition we will ensure, with a 20 per cent. increase in new funding, that the Office of Fair Trading has the necessary resources to break down barriers which prevent new firms entering markets and keep prices high for consumers. Further announcements on how the new arrangements will proceed will come from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he publishes his competitiveness White Paper.
"Our policy is pro-small business, pro-share ownership, pro-tax simplification and pro-competition.
"Our policy is also pro-skills and pro-science.
"To turn scientific inventions in Britain into jobs for Britain we need to do more to honour the spirit of invention, facilitate the exploitation of invention and encourage the commercialisation of invention.

159
"More than ever innovation is the key to higher productivity. So we must see that inventions which are created in Britain are developed and manufactured in Britain.
"The first step is a higher quality and quantity of research and development. So the Government will consult small business on supplementing the current tax relief for R&D with a more effective tax credit for small business based on the volume of R&D investment.
"Three months ago we announced a partnership with the Wellcome Trust to invest over £1 billion to re-equip university science in Britain, the largest ever investment in Britain's science base.
"Having received an overwhelming response from universities to our new University Challenge Fund—the private public partnership for commercialising scientific inventions—we are now inviting further private sector involvement.
"I now want to complete the path that takes inventions from the science lab through to high tech venture capital and then to the national and global marketplace.
"So I am announcing today that to develop business expertise in science and to transfer technology from the science lab to the marketplace, we will endow up to eight new institutes of enterprise in British universities. A further signal of our determination that the genius of British invention will once again become an engine for British growth and jobs.
"A strong venture capital industry supporting high-tech, high-risk investments is critical to the future of Britain.
"Today we have only 6 per cent. of the early stage high-tech venture capital of the United States. So we will consult on and consider new incentives, including how to encourage our most successful companies to invest in start-ups, and how we can provide new sources of venture capital and management expertise for entrepreneurs.
"The productivity challenge is one that must be met by the public sector and not just the private sector.
"Next month, for the first time, the Government will publish public service agreements which set, for all departments, clear targets for improved performance. And to help them meet these targets and to monitor performance we are establishing an advisory panel from business and management.
"Absenteeism costs the public sector up to £6 billion a year. Specific targets are being set for each department to reduce absence rates by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.
"We are working with business, not just to promote higher productivity, but to secure policies for a sustainable environment.
"I am publishing today the report of Lord Marshall, formerly President of the CBI, into the role of economic instruments and the business use of energy. I thank him for his work, which substantially moves
160
forward the debate, and the Government will give full consideration to his recommendations as part of its wider strategy on climate change.
"Today I am also publishing a consultation document, containing proposals for a £50 reduction in vehicle excise duty for the smallest and most environmentally efficient cars.
"Just as the Government are modernising our industrial economy, so too we are modernising employment policy.
"The House will be pleased to know that by next April 300,000 people will have benefited from the New Deal. That is now giving men and women previously left out and excluded a new sense of hope.
"Already, 29,000 companies have signed up to the New Deal and 30,000 have found jobs with employers, jobs they would not have had without the New Deal.
"We are now ready to extend the New Deal. From 30th November, 60,000 opportunities will be created for the long-term unemployed in 28 areas of the country.
"In Northern Ireland, in support of the peace process, we will now guarantee new opportunities to all those men and women who have been unemployed for more than 18 months.
"We will also extend nationwide the New Deal skills shortage programme, and offer up-front support for training to help fill the vacancies that come on-stream every month.
"And, by March next year, I can confirm that to tackle skill shortages there will be 120 centres for IT and high-tech training in every part of the country.
"Side-by-side with the New Deal there will be new guarantees that work will pay more than benefits.
"From April, as a result of abolishing the entry fee to national insurance, all employees will receive a tax cut of £66 a year.
"And business will be pleased that I can announce that from April, employers will not pay national insurance on earnings below £83 a week, the 1999 level for the personal tax allowance.
"When it is economically right to do so—and so that work pays more—we will introduce the 10 pence starting rate of income tax.
"From 1st April, 1.9 million employees, including 1.3 million women, will benefit from the minimum wage.
"And I can also confirm that the minimum income guarantee for a low paid family, which as a result of the working families tax credit was announced at £180 will, as a result of the minimum wage and tax and benefit changes we are making, be raised to £190 a week from October next year.
"So that work pays—a guaranteed minimum of £190—with no income tax to pay on incomes below £220 a week.
"This will guarantee a minimum income for a lone parent with one child of at least £5.50 an hour, and for an adult with 2 children £6.37 an hour.

161
"To enable parents and carers to balance work and family responsibilities, I want to provide extra help for child care. We have provided resources for up to one million new child care places over the next four years. And today, consistent with our national child care strategy we will extend our new child care tax credit to cover all children up to age 14; and, in the case of children who are disabled and who have greater needs, until the school leaving age of 16.
"We will also match the working families tax credit with a new disabled person's tax credit that will ensure that work pays for a disabled man or woman who takes a job.
"A disabled person, with one child, moving from benefit to full-time employment, will be guaranteed a minimum income of £220 a week, with no income tax payable on income below £274 a week.
"Disabled men and women taking up work will be as much as £78 a week better off.
"So under this Government, disabled people, who want to work, will now be guaranteed fair treatment at work and work will pay.
"And matching the minimum income guarantee for disabled persons in work there will be a new disability income guarantee of £128 a week for the severely disabled out of work.
"And at the same time, we are guaranteeing pensioner couples a new minimum income of £117 a week. And this will be followed in the Budget with a guarantee that pensioners will have no income tax to pay unless their income rises above a new specified level.
"And as a result of the measures we have taken—by following up our cut in VAT on fuel with tougher regulation and our new winter fuel payments—I can say that pensioners are saving £108 on their fuel bills and the poorest pensioners are saving £140.
"So our task as a country for the coming year, steering a course of stability, is to meet the productivity challenge, to extend fairness and welfare to work, and to make the modern investment we need in our future.
"And I am pleased to announce that, following the modernisation of the private finance initiative, there will be new investment in our infrastructure—in over 1,000 schools, in over 25 hospitals and in dozens of public transport projects—over the coming three years an additional £11 billion. And I can also confirm that over the three years from next April, public investment itself will double and do so at the right time—the right decision, the right course of action for our country.
"I have one further announcement. Because of our prudence in the management of public finances, government spending is well within the limits we set. Our prudence is for a purpose. Therefore, to ensure in every part of the United Kingdom the health care that people—and especially elderly people—need this winter, I am today making an additional and
162
immediate winter cash allocation, to be spent in the next five months, of £250 million more for our National Health Service.
"And I can confirm that, because this Government believe in the best health and the best education, not just for a few but for all our people, we will invest an additional £40 billion in the modernisation of education and our health service over the next three years: public services that in the months and the years ahead are safe in this Government's hands, a government who are steering a stable course, prudently investing in our future, proudly building strong public services and consistently keeping their promises to the British people. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. Noble Lords will also wish to congratulate the Minister on his stamina. Indeed, perhaps noble Lords should congratulate themselves on their stamina because it is certainly an extremely lengthy Statement covering a wide range of issues.
Such Statements are now adopting a particular pattern. The central points tend to be announced in the press the previous day, as they were in the case of this Statement. More particularly, there is a tendency now for the Statement to repeat points, as though they were new matters, which had been announced previously. That is true of a number of the items to which the Minister referred.
He started by referring to the position which the present Government inherited. He and I have disagreed about that before. My personal view remains that it was the best inheritance which any government have inherited in the post-war period. He picked up a particular point. He said that what was wrong was that consumer expenditure was out of control. If that were so, why did the Chancellor clearly fail in his first Budget to deal with that problem as a result of which, combined with the decision to make the Bank of England independent, he created a situation where interest rates were bound to rise; there was a corresponding increase in exchange rates; and manufacturing industry in this country has suffered severely as a result of that mistake?
While one must hope it is not so in the future, since the Government came to office there has been a marked lack of co-ordination between monetary and fiscal policy. We are told that the Treasury is in control of fiscal policy and that the Bank of England is in control of interest rate policy. But interest rate policy is not the same as monetary policy. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister which of the two is concerned with and in control of the money supply. In particular, is it or is it not the Government's intention to fund the deficit in full? The Minister took some credit for what is happening to long-term interest rates. Is it the Treasury or the Bank of England which is responsible for that?

163
The Minister has two particular favourite achievements to which he likes to refer. The first is the fact that public expenditure plans are set in concrete. In the light of his announcement, there would seem to be a considerable variation as regards what he has announced previously in that respect. Will he confirm that that is so and will he quantify it?
The Minister is a great enthusiast for the so-called golden rule. Indeed, he argues that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has continued to achieve that golden rule although its actual formulation has altered somewhat from that which was established previously. But is it not the case that, for example, the recent review of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—and I must declare an interest because I have been a governor of it for many years but I certainly have had nothing to do with this particular piece of analysis—states:
"Strategically, the government stressed the distinction between current and capital spending and committed itself to borrowing only what is necessary to finance capital investment over the economical cycle"?
It then goes on:
"The projections in the EFSR show the 'golden rule', that borrowing is not used to finance current spending, being met throughout the period from 1998 to 2001 and beyond. Our projections do not show it being met in any of these years. This is despite making similar assumptions about public sector spending and investment".
One must have the gravest doubts as to whether the Government are in fact still going to achieve their golden rule.
The Minister has put much stress, as he did yesterday, on the international financial situation. He sought to argue that that was one reason for the Government making a very significant reduction in their forecast for economic growth. The fact is that all countries live in the global economy. Why is it then that the rate of growth which he is now forecasting is significantly lower, indeed, half, that which is expected in France and Germany and, indeed, half that which is expected in Australia, which has most certainly been affected more by the down-turn in the Asian markets than we have? I hope that the Minister can answer that point because it makes it clear that the problems which we are facing are, to a large extent, not international problems but those which have been affected by the Government's own economic policy since they came to office.
There is a great deal in this Statement which is way off the normal scope of Budget Statements. In particular, one should stress that a central aspect of the Government's economic policy was that they would reduce social security spending in order to spend more on health and education. The Minister and I exchanged views on this matter a few days ago. Will he now confess that there will not be any cut in social security spending? On the contrary, is it not the case that the increase in social security spending is almost as much as that on health and education combined? Will he clarify that particular point because it has undermined much of the Government's economic policy?
164
Indeed, the effect of that has also been shown in other ways. The Government's policy has had a particularly serious effect on thrift, savings and on pensions. As regards pensions, in the first Budget, the effect of ACT was to reduce the funds available to pension funds by something like £5 billion.
It is also the case that the effect of the Government's present economic policy has been to produce an almost unknown situation where Stock Exchange prices and annuity rates have been going down together whereas previously, normally, if one went up, the other went down and vice versa. The effect of that is that people retiring now may well find that the pension which they can actually expect for the rest of their life is 35 per cent. less than they might reasonably have expected when this present Government came to power.
If there is one thing in the area of pensions and benefits and so on which adds insult to injury, it is the measure announced last week. Then we were told that if a disabled person had been able to find employment, and had been sufficiently prudent to contribute to a defined contribution company pension scheme, incapacity benefit would be reduced. That is something about which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has complained and I hope that the House will succeed in reversing that.
I have only two other points to make, although there are a great many matters which I am unable to cover. Perhaps I may first raise a matter which has already been before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord referred to a situation where the starting rate at which people pay income tax will be raised. That was announced by the Chancellor last year. Although he gave the impression that it was going to be done in last year's Budget, we now understand that it will be introduced next year. It was combined with a clear statement that the position of those who were then not going to contribute to the national insurance scheme would be protected. This measure was not going to be implemented until that was made clear. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that protection?
My final point is this. The Chancellor is now clearly determined to undermine the contribution principle, either because people will not receive benefits for which they have contributed under the national insurance scheme or other people will receive things for which they have not contributed. In the light of the international situation I said yesterday that Lord Keynes's shadow might well be lurking in the Gallery. Under this Government one asks what is happening to Lord Beveridge's shadow because there is a fundamental undermining here of something which has formed the basis of our welfare system since the end of World War II; and that is very dangerous indeed. When one considers the overall situation, to a large extent this Statement reflects the Government's failure to date. We must hope that they do a little better in the future.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this Statement. Let us not be petty about it. This Statement is good news. It is much more

165
optimistic than anyone would have expected. I just hope that it is right. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why our growth rate was lower than that of Germany and France. It is expected to be lower because we are at a very different stage of the economic cycle. Given the kinds of the projections that the Government have put forward—I hope to God that they are right!—that suggests that in due course we might converge because the picture for next year and the year after is very much more optimistic than I personally expected.
The Statement has to be judged by two criteria. The first is the macro-economic one: the outlook for growth and the policies to promote it. Secondly, there are the supply side measures and tax changes. The first question that arises is whether the Chancellor is right to be as optimistic—or, if one likes, relatively unpessimistic—as he has been. Obviously, there are great difficulties about the sources of information at the present time. When he was Chancellor, Lord Macmillan on one occasion referred to the difficulty of looking up train times in the previous year's Bradshaw.
The difficulty at present is that quite a few of the guides that we have are blank pages. One of the most important criteria which the Government have to take into account is what is happening to wages and earnings. At the moment we do not know. They have decided not to publish the figures because they have been so unreliable in the past. They were underestimated at one stage and over-estimated at another. We may well have higher interest rates now than previously because the statistics were so unreliable.
The crucial question which the Government have to judge is as regards the output gap. Without figures for earnings it is very difficult to make up one's mind. What are the signs? I have never been a doomster. It is sometimes fashionable, in particular in journalistic circles, to preach doom and gloom because it gives one a kind of spurious reputation for profundity. Certainly there are reasons for worry. I do not believe that anyone can be sure that the Japanese situation has bottomed out. One cannot be sure that the Brazilian economy will be rescued or that that of Latin America will not slide. If it does it will have the gravest implications for the United States. But the American position does not look too bad at the moment. The Fed is extremely flexible and very enlightened, as I mentioned yesterday.
The outlook for the European Union is fairly optimistic. It is likely that it will not have quite the rate of growth that it was looking for, but there will be a reasonable measure of growth. Against that background the position of the United Kingdom does not look too bad. As the Chancellor has pointed out, we start from a position of low inflation compared with the past. A number of companies are in a strong position. The question of corporate liquidity is not a very serious one. When one looks at the gloomy prediction of the CBI, which has often been the harbinger of recession in the past, one finds, as Mr. Anatole Kaletsky points out today, that there is a certain contrast between the general gloom expressed by businessmen who have been pronouncing their views as to what will happen to the economy—they are not necessarily worth more than the
166
views that I or someone else would express—but when they are asked about their particular companies they are rather less gloomy.
At present there are very mixed signals. It seems to me that the best policy for the Chancellor in the circumstances is not to panic. Moods change very rapidly and we should stick to a long-term strategy. That is what he seems to have done. By that test the Statement is to be warmly welcomed. I do not know whether the projections will be borne out. Most of them are not. Almost inevitably they will be wrong, but which way they are wrong we cannot tell. Will they be too gloomy or too optimistic and by how much will they be wrong? What is required is a steady nerve and, on the whole, I believe that that is what the Chancellor has shown. It is to be welcomed.
As regards micro-economic changes, I was somewhat worried that because of all the special whinges for special concessions there would be a number of specific measures, but they seem to have been restricted. The tax concessions seem to be reasonable. However, can the Minister say whether the Government will look with a great deal of sympathy on the Marshall Report? In connection with our long-term survival, environmental well-being and economic welfare, there is clearly a need to shift taxes onto pollution and away from people and companies.
I am somewhat disappointed that there is nothing more definite about the taxation of company cars. It does not appear to be an insuperable obstacle to tax cars on engine size. Surely a great deal more can be done about company cars when there is so much evidence that people who have them undertake twice as much driving as they would if they had private cars. We cannot discourage car ownership, but we should discourage the amount of driving which people undertake.
I am glad that the Chancellor has postponed the 10 per cent. tax rate for the time being. Cannot the Government have second thoughts about it? When Chancellor Lamont introduced the 20 per cent. rate he made a profound mistake. All the evidence produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that it was not egalitarian. It does not promote equality and complicates the tax system. It is a gesture. The announced rate of 10 per cent. tax is equally a gesture. It is an absurdity. I hope that the Government will abolish that nonsense. Far more can be done for the poor, and the general wellbeing of the tax system if allowances are raised.
This is not strictly part of the Statement, but as regards social policy a number of measures have been announced. The one measure that would do far more for pensioners and their long-term wellbeing would be to grasp the nettle of poverty in old age in the long term and accept the need for a compulsory second tier funded pension. It is deeply disturbing that, according to a Financial Times report, it looks as though the Government have now shirked away from that important decision. That would be a great tragedy.
We on these Benches express some reservations about the micro-economic measures and the tax changes. No doubt we shall examine them in due course in greater

167
detail. But as regards the most important aspects of the Statement, I hope that the Chancellor's relative optimism is justified. The overall view of the Chancellor, on the face of it, suggests that he is sticking to his long-term policy prescriptions. On the whole, we must welcome those whatever the reservations may be on the micro-economic front.
4.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the message gets back to the Chancellor about the difficult task I have in this House compared with the task he has in another place. I am faced with a governor of the National Institute of Economic & Social Research, and the chairman, I believe, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, both purporting to be politicians when they are really experts questioning an amateur. Sometimes I quail before the quality as well as the quantity of the interrogation that I suffer.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that there is a tendency in these Statements to follow a pattern and to repeat previous announcements. I do not deny that. I used the word "confirm" on a number of occasions and it is true that the 10 per cent. lower level of income tax has been heralded on a number of occasions, though it has always been said that it will be when the economy can afford it, not that it would happen this year or next year. However, perhaps I may take comfort in the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark, who insisted that,
"What I tell you three times is true".
Perhaps the message will get through—not, of course, to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite, but to noble Lords and the country generally—that we mean what we say, and fundamentally that is the message that we have tried to get over in the past 18 months.
The noble Lord went back to the record of the last government, which is his privilege. He does not have much else to go on except that. He complained about the first Budget not doing anything about the growth of consumer spending. In a situation where inflation was heading to over 4 per cent.—a level double that of our major competitors—what we did by devolving responsibility for short-term interest rates to the Bank of England and ensuring that long over-delayed decisions on interest rates were taken independently and effectively, now seems clearly justified. Similarly, the fiscal tightening on which we embarked and our control of public expenditure to the figures we inherited not just for one year, but for two years, seem in retrospect also to have been entirely justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked who was responsible for long-term interest rates; whether it was a matter of monetary or fiscal policy. He knows better than I do that long-term interest rates are set by the market and come down—as they have come down—when the market is confident that the Government are in good hands; that we have stable, long-term policies. That is exactly why they have come down and why the difference between our long-term interest rates and those of Germany have gone down by around 100 basis points since the last election.
168
The noble Lord gave us evidence from the National Institute of Economic & Social Research in relation to the "golden rule". I say straight away that the national institute has the same assumptions about most of the economic and public finance variables with which we are concerned and therefore there is some puzzle as to why it comes to a marginally different view from that to which we come. The explanation must be that it is more pessimistic on the public finances. The explanation of that in turn must be that it has not taken into account the latest encouraging out-turn figures. If we look more widely than the national institute, at other forecasts, the collective view of independent forecasters' most recent forecasts is for growth of 1.1 per cent. compared with our lower figure of 1 per cent. and of the newest forecasts, 0.9 per cent. In terms of the accuracy of economic forecasting we are not talking about a great difference. It can be safely asserted that the Chancellor is in line with informed opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why we have lower growth than France and Germany when he turned to considering the global economy. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, answered that entirely effectively. I agree with him. It is obvious that we are at a different stage of the economic cycle and it would hardly be expected that our growth figures could compete with those who are at an earlier stage of the economic cycle. Indeed, I remember forecasting, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn first came to office as Finance Minister in France that, paradoxically—though I fully support the Chancellor in terms of growth—he was more likely to have a successful record than we would in this country.
The noble Lord then returned to his old arguments about social security expenditure. We never said that there would be an absolute reduction in social security expenditure. We said that social security expenditure would be used for the purpose of getting people back into work and supporting those in most need; that we expected to do better in that regard than the previous government, and indeed we have. Over the period of this Parliament we expect social security expenditure to increase by 1.25 per cent. per annum in real terms compared with the figure in the last Parliament of 3.8 per cent. in real terms. The money now is going for children and pensioners, not those who are deprived of work by the mismanagement of the Government. That is in the context of there being 400,000 more jobs in this country than there were when we came into office almost exactly 18 months ago.
The noble Lord must be short of material for he again returned to argue about advance corporation tax—what is more properly described as the removal of the double relief anomaly. The experience over the past 15 months has shown that all the hysterical forecasts—I do not use that word in relation to the noble Lord—made in relation to the effects of those changes proved and are continuing to prove to be entirely unjustified.
The noble Lord made a great deal of issues relating to pensioners and yet there was no specific reference to pensioners in the pre-Budget Report. As he knows, a review is in hand and its results will be announced at the appropriate time. I believe he said that the return on annuities has been reduced to those who are seeking to

169
cash in their annuities as they enter pensionable age. Indeed, that is correct; I recognise that. But returns on annuities reduce as there is greater confidence in the ability of this Government to control inflation and to move out of the "boom-bust" economy. We are sad for those pensioners who are receiving a reduced return on annuities, but in return they are getting a greater guarantee of a low inflation, stable economy and stable society in which they will pass their retirement years.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made more points in relation to pensioners to which, if he will forgive me, I shall not respond in detail. We must await the definitive statement on that issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very positive comments. He talks as though the Chancellor is making optimistic forecasts. But if I make the comparisons, as I have done, with independent forecasters, he will agree that we are being just as prudent in our assessment of tax revenues, and our assessment of most of the other ingredients of our forecasts.
He is quite right to say that pay figures are in disarray at the moment and that is something to which we shall no doubt have to return. I shall be interested to read Dr. Holt's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee today. The noble Lord is right in saying also that there is a huge element of world instability; that the whole thrust of the Statement has been that we have taken into account realistically the increase in world instability and the downturn in the growth in world trade and even in world growth. To that extent I believe it will be shown, as it has been shown since the last Statement, that we are being prudent rather than extravagant.
The noble Lord understandably expressed concern about micro-economic changes. But he will understand that this is a pre-Budget Statement and not a Budget. Your Lordships have never had Budgets presented to them in this House. Many of the comments are made in imprecise terms for perfectly good reasons; that is, to avoid evasion and so that there can be reasonable consultation on the details. I hope that the noble Lord will find that there is consultation in the months between now and the Budget.
The noble Lord asked us to assure him that we shall take the Marshall report extremely seriously. We would not have commissioned it unless we intended to do so—and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, would not have agreed to undertake that work unless he believed that we intended to do so. We are certainly doing that.
My final point is on the CBI and expectations. I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said about that. Expectations data are always perceptions rather than reports of reality; I have contributed to them so I should know. Even when businesses are reporting, they have order books which represent the future. They report the general climate of opinion in the country as much as actual fact. I am not saying that expectations data are useless, but they swing around a lot compared with the reality. I am grateful to both noble Lords.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, although I do not agree with everything that my right honourable friend the
170
Chancellor has said, I congratulate my noble friend on having read out that lengthy Statement so well. I agree that the Chancellor may need to borrow a little more. He has shown that that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I often feel terribly sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on such occasions. He cannot really have believed what he was saying, but he did not have an alternative to put to us. So, there were no miraculous alternatives to the need to borrow at present and in the circumstances that the Chancellor outlined.
I have one or two questions to ask my noble friend. I note that the assumptions have been validated by the National Audit Office. I have a huge regard for the National Audit Office, having been chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for some years. However, it could be wrong on that point, just as the Government could be wrong on the whole question of statistical variations.
I note that the famous golden rule would enable the Government to borrow for capital expenditure and to balance current expenditure over the economic cycle. Does my noble friend accept that there are clearly problems with the definitions of "capital expenditure", "current expenditure" and "economic cycle"? Can my noble friend explain to me how variable the economic cycle could be and his definition of "current expenditure" and "capital expenditure"?
I have done some work on current and capital expenditure in another life. I have also done a bit of creative accounting in that sense, so I know that the definitions can vary quite substantially. As I have said, it is reasonable in the circumstances that the Chancellor has decided to borrow. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not refer today to a "black hole", but obviously he cannot yet have read what has been said in another place. I assume that the noble Lord did not refer to how to fill a "black hole" because he does not believe that there will be one. As I have said, I often feel sorry for the noble Lord, for whom I have great regard.
If we are to abide by the golden rule, regardless of the definitions, would it not be more reasonable for the Chancellor—perhaps my noble friend can confirm this—to recognise that there could be margins of error? Indeed, there have been margins of error over the years and in their Budget Statements most Chancellors recognise and admit to them. We now have so many Statements—pre-Budget, post-Budget and mid-Budget Statements. Clearly, given the world situation, there could be substantial margins of error and, although the Chancellor's forecast for next year of growth of between 1 and 1½ per cent. could be as accurate as those of anybody else, the rate of growth could equally well be zero. In those circumstances, if the forecasts were wrong to that extent, would the Chancellor still be able to meet his forecasts about the overall economic and financial situation? Although the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not talk about doom, gloom and recession—he is too nice a fellow—may I ask my noble friend his definition of "recession"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested that my noble friend refers to the possible

171
need for an increase in borrowing. He recognises, of course, that that has been fully taken into account in the figures presented. I note and applaud the difference between him and some Conservative spokesmen who seem to think that in good times you cut taxes and in bad times you cut spending and ultimately get away from government altogether. Although we have not gone into detail about the Budget for every year of the next five years—there would be no fun in that—we take the view that the investment that we propose to make in health and education, in particular, is an investment for the long-term future of our country. That is why we are sticking by the £40 billion of expenditure on health and education over three years. In addition, it is the right time as far as the economy is concerned.
My noble friend is, of course, right about the golden rule. It depends on definitions of "capital" and "current" expenditure. A great deal of progress has been made on that. As an accountant, my noble friend will know that accountants will continue to query such definitions—I nearly said "distort", but as my noble friend himself said that I do not feel afraid of repeating the word. It is also true that an economic cycle is difficult to identify until you have passed it! The definitions seem to work pretty well and we seem to understand fairly well where we are in this present economic cycle. Therefore, I can resist my noble friend's invitation to spell out the Government's policies in the context of the Armageddon that he put to me as an alternative.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all independent economists agree that the economy that this Government inherited was very healthy? The budget deficit was reduced by the one-off windfall profits tax. Does the Minister agree that as a country we must remain competitive and that something is looming on the horizon with regard to the withholding tax in Europe? That was tried in the United States and in Japan. The result was that that section of their financial markets moved overseas. If we fall into that trap, our financial market will be penalised. The business will not go to Europe; it will not go to Frankfurt or anywhere like that; it will go to the USA or Bermuda. Can the Minister assure us that the Government and the Chancellor will vigorously resist that sort of thing?
Does the Minister agree that it is essential to encourage saving? I know that he will not agree with what I am about to say. Surely hitting savings in the last Budget to the tune of about £5 billion was a mistake because it penalised thriftiness. In the next Budget, will pensions be affected by changing the fiscal policies?
Finally, on tax harmonisation, as the Minister said, our corporation tax rate is one of the lowest in Europe, but if there is harmonisation, that could mean that corporation tax will rise. Of course, corporation tax has not risen and I congratulate the Government on that. However, other back-door taxes on businesses,
172
particularly small business, have been devastating. Consequently, I hope that the Government will resist any change in the harmonisation of taxation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord undermined his first argument by saying that all independent economists agree. The time when all economists do agree will be a time when I believe some of us will take a well-earned retirement. No, for the reasons given in the Statement, we do not agree that it was a golden legacy from the previous government. We had rising inflation, we had continued reductions in investment and we had an explosive economy that had to be dealt with.
As far as concerns competitiveness, I strongly agree with the noble Lord that the latter is absolutely the key. However, if he thinks that withholding tax is the key to achieving that, I believe him to be much mistaken. I recommend the McKinsey Report to him. He should also consider the many more important barriers to competitiveness which were referred to in the Statement in some detail. I believe he will find that to be much more constructive.
The noble Lord is also right to say that it is important for us to encourage saving, especially for pensioners. That is why our emphasis all the time is for a stable and low inflationary economy at the heart of our policies. Finally, as regards tax harmonisation, it would need our agreement to enter into tax harmonisation. However, it is not our intention to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is something which evidently escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I have in mind the Government's recognition of the need to give employees a real share in the long-term future of the businesses for which they work, aligning their interests with those of established shareholders.
However, while the steps that my noble friend has announced today are important in terms of the purchase of shares by employees, does my noble friend agree that something additional is required; namely, the need to give an incentive to companies to allocate shares to the workforce by providing a tax break for the companies concerned? That has worked with great success in the United States, especially in some parts of the airline business which were showing signs of real collapse—indeed, the possibility of Chapter 11 operations starting. As a result of employee share option purchase schemes coming into operation, productivity increased, the price of shares increased, the well-being and performance of the companies increased and, indeed, many of those airlines are today, in a very tough world, showing distinct signs of success. Is this not something that we ought to approach with rather more zeal than we have in the past in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's contribution. Of course, the announcements made about employee share ownership are only outline proposals in advance of the Budget itself in which definitive announcements will be made. Indeed, this is the beginning of a consultation

173
period on employee share ownership. The very interesting and valuable point that my noble friend made will certainly be taken into account in that consultation.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, reference was made a few moments ago to tax harmonisation. Has not the Government's resistance to tax harmonisation in the European Union been undermined by the Government's support for the policy of the OECD on so-called, "harmful tax competition"? Provided that there is no support for tax evasion, what is the difference between one country winning business from another by being able, through its own prudent policies, to offer a more benign tax regime and a country winning trade from another country by producing more efficiently?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as was the case when it was last raised, this subject is somewhat wide of the pre-Budget Report. Indeed, I do not propose to say anything more than I have already said. We are not obliged to implement any proposals that may be brought forward under the rules of Article 100. We have not said that we will not enter into negotiations because there are clearly some advantages in doing so. However, we shall not do so if there is going to be serious damage to our financial industries.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is a remarkable Statement. However, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I utter three words of caution. Indeed, having performed so excellently, I hope that my noble friend does not then decide that he would rather be sitting elsewhere. First, unless I misheard my noble friend, he seemed to say that we will have only one year with economic growth below trend; namely, next year. In other words, there will be just a blip. I believe that that is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was also drawing to our attention. I very much hope that that is true; but, to say the least, I am astonished. Therefore, I trust that my noble friend will convey to my right honourable friend the fact that we would love to see that outcome but that it looks a little on the optimistic side.
My second point refers to the question of employee share ownership. It sounds very good in theory and I certainly toyed with it in my younger days; indeed, precisely along the lines set out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In theory, it should reduce conflict between employer and employee. However, its difficulty lies, does it not, on the side of risk. If employees put their assets into the same company from which they earn their income, they are actually adding to their risk during the cycle rather than subtracting from it. The point would hold a fortiori if pension funds then put even more into the companies for which they were paying pensions. Therefore, without suggesting that that is a bad idea, it is certainly one that I hope my right honourable friend will approach with the utmost caution.
Thirdly—and, I am afraid, rather acerbically—did I hear correctly that my right honourable friend is proposing that businessmen should go to schools which will tell them how to improve their performance? Does
174
that not seem to contrast with the proposition that we have a 40 per cent. productivity gap? As those businessmen are responsible for that productivity gap, would it not be better for them if they stuck to their muttons and let the schools get on with what they know about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the first issue of whether we are expecting only one year of growth below trend, I am sure that when my noble friend has the opportunity to study the figures in detail he will see that we are indeed forecasting GDP growth to be 1 to 1½ per cent. in 1999, then rising slowly to 2¼ to 2¾ per cent. in the year 2000 and 2¾ to 3¼ per cent. in 2001. In other words, we will take three years to get back to the level which we are forecasting for 1998. So it is not a single year figure; indeed, it hardly could be so.
My noble friend's thinking on employee share ownership is another useful addition to the review which will take place between now and the Budget. We recognise the risk that share participation could reduce the ability and willingness of people to change jobs when that would be desirable. As far as concerns businessmen going into schools, I should point out to my noble friend that I do not believe I have ever used the term "businessmen" and I do not believe that I ever would. However, it is certainly not the intention that the increased contact between the world of education and the world of work should be by the top managers who, as he said, are responsible for our poor productivity. I believe that the contact must be at all levels in industry and commerce.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I listened to a broadcast of the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a radio programme. I thought to myself: "That is a very impressive man". He is producing a Statement which could have come from Kenneth Clarke, only it was delivered with a slightly different voice.
There are two points which I believe deserve clarification. The first is the assumption of a badly inherited economy. Indeed, if that was the case and the economy was in such bad nick, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer stick to the same tax and spend rules and follow exactly the same rules set out by his predecessor? Secondly, mention was made in the Statement of the 40 per cent. productivity gap. In today's edition of The Times, Anatole Kaletsky, admittedly going on about the productivity gap, talks about the differences between productivity in Great Britain and the United States. He shows Great Britain as having a figure of 100 and the US with a figure of 137. Most of the other major economies are much below that, but of course some of them are higher.
Will the Government stop running down that which is good? By all means criticise that which is bad; of course we accept that. But when those two statements seem to me to be factually wrong, why go on about it? After all, according to the OECD, this country has the fourth biggest economy in the world and it is doing jolly well. It has done well since 1990 under both governments. It would be more gracious of the

175
Chancellor to accept some of the good things which he inherited and then the criticisms of the bad things he inherited would carry more weight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am truly sorry that it is such a universal theme on the Opposition Benches that they have to hark back over and over again to this so-called golden legacy which we inherited. The Statement sets out the position clearly and I have repeated it once already. We inherited an economy in which investment had been neglected for many years and in which the lack of decision-making on interest rates had led to an unsustainable increase in inflation. We inherited many good things too—no one is saying that everything was wrong—but perhaps next year or the year after we can get away from 1st May 1997 and we can start to talk about the present.
I have not read Anatole Kaletsky's article that the noble Earl mentioned; I have been reading the briefing notes rather than the raw material today, I am afraid. However, Mr. Kaletsky clearly confirms exactly what is said in the Statement; namely, that the difference in productivity between ourselves and the United States is something of the order of 40 per cent. and the difference in productivity between us and Germany and France is of the order of 20 per cent. Even if those figures are wrong—some of them are, of course, unknowable statistics—there is a serious difference which cannot be allowed to continue.

Iraq
5.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on Iraq which is being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place.
"Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a Statement on the latest developments in Iraq.
"Last August Iraq informed the Security Council that it was suspending co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA other than on monitoring activities. The effect was to prevent both agencies from carrying out surprise inspections at sites which they suspected were part of a programme for weapons of mass destruction. The work of both agencies was confined to monitoring the status of sites which they had already cleared.
"The Security Council responded with Resolution 1194 which provided both the penalty for this violation of Saddam's agreement and an incentive for him to comply. As a penalty we suspended the regular review of the continuing need for sanctions. As an incentive we offered a comprehensive review if Baghdad returned to full compliance. Nevertheless on Saturday Iraq notified the Security Council that it would no longer co-operate with UNSCOM even on such monitoring.
176
"As the outgoing President of the Security Council, Britain convened an emergency session which agreed to a statement condemning the Iraqi action. It records the view of the Security Council that the Iraqi decision is a "flagrant violation" of Security Council resolutions and of the agreement they made with Kofi Annan on his visit to Baghdad in February.
"The Security Council's support for the statement was unanimous. It was fully endorsed by Russia whose spokesman said that Russia was deeply concerned about the Iraqi decision. Baghdad's attempt to close down the work of the inspectorates coincides with the evidence that Saddam Hussein continues actively to pursue his ambition to maintain his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.
"Only two weeks ago a group of experts received the results of the tests carried out in French and Swiss laboratories to corroborate the US findings of traces of VX nerve gas in fragments of Iraqi missile warheads. The French laboratory found evidence consistent with the presence of nerve gas in the warheads, and both confirmed that Iraq had tried to decontaminate the warheads. For years Saddam has maintained that Iraq has never achieved a deliverable VX weapon. These discoveries expose his denials as one more lie.
"The greatest anxiety relates to Iraq's programme for biological weapons. UNSCOM has concluded that Baghdad's most recent declaration of its biological weapons capacity fails to give a "remotely credible" account of the programme.
"We are in close consultation with our allies to maintain a united front and to achieve the most effective pressure on Iraq. Today a resolution will be tabled in the Security Council which will demand that Iraq immediately restores co-operation with both UNSCOM and the IAEA. That strong resolution has been drafted by Britain and we shall be working to achieve unity around it. We want to find a diplomatic solution but we have always made clear that all options remain open.
"The latest decision by Baghdad is particularly perverse as the Security Council agreed only last Friday on the terms of a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its undertakings. Those terms held out the prospect of a time-frame for the completion of the work of UNSCOM and the IAEA, which could lead in turn to the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.
"However, any such progress can be achieved only with the full compliance of Baghdad. So long as Baghdad continues to conceal its capacity for chemical and biological warfare and so long as it obstructs UNSCOM from revealing the truth about those programmes, there can be no progress towards lifting sanctions.
"Our dispute is with Saddam Hussein. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. On the contrary we have grave concern for the suffering they are experiencing under Saddam Hussein. Only last month Max Vanderstahl, the UN special rapporteur on Iraq, presented his latest report which concluded that there

177
has been no improvement at all in the repeated violation of human rights by Saddam Hussein, including torture, summary execution, arbitrary arrests and persecution of minorities.
"Britain took the lead at the United Nations in pressing for a doubling of the oil for food programme. As a result Baghdad can now sell over 10 billion dollars of oil per annum to pay for food and medicines, which are in any case exempt from sanctions, and other humanitarian goods. I am pleased to report to the House that the latest information available to the UN confirms that as a result there have been positive improvements in access to food and medicine.
"Saddam Hussein appears to be gambling that the world will grow weary of his constant evasion and his repeated confrontation. His calculation is that we will eventually give up and abandon the sanctions regime without requiring him to abandon his ambitions for regional supremacy through weapons of terror. We must remain ready and resolute to prove him wrong. It would be too dangerous for Iraq's neighbours in the region to leave Saddam Hussein with the capacity to produce weapons that could wipe out whole cities. It would be too damaging for the authority of the United Nations if Saddam was allowed to break the current agreement he entered into with the Secretary General. He cannot and will not be allowed to win".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. From these Benches I confirm that, while we support all efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the present crisis, we also welcome the Government's determination to keep all options open, including military options, which, interestingly, even in general were absent from the Foreign Secretary's Statement on this occasion. Regrettably the events of recent days have proved once again that the only language Saddam Hussein truly understands is the language of diplomacy backed by the vocabulary of a commitment to force.
This is far from the first time that Iraq has severely tested the patience of the international community. Saddam Hussein is an expert player in a deadly game of brinkmanship and in brazen defiance of world opinion. Only nine months ago, in February, to avoid military action he undertook to "co-operate fully" with the United Nations and to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to the UNSCOM inspectors. It is that same undertaking which Iraq is now so blatantly flouting.
At that time the Foreign Secretary rightly told another place:
"If Saddam were now to be permitted to set aside all those decisions of the UN, and if we were to walk away and to allow him to do so with impunity, there would be no point in invoking the power of the UN the next time we are confronted by a dictator threatening the security of his region or the lives of his people".— [Official Report, Commons, 17/2/98; col. 909.]
Does the Minister stand by those remarks today?
178
At that time the Prime Minister said that only, "effective diplomacy and firm willingness to use force" brought about the agreement and that "nothing else" would ensure its satisfactory implementation. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are prepared to display equal resolve through the international community now? Will she also comment on the deployment of British forces in the region, including the Tornado aircraft stationed there? Are there preparations to dispatch more British forces to the Gulf?
The Foreign Secretary's Office has rightly described Iraq's unilateral decision to stop UNSCOM carrying out its duty as "totally unacceptable". The Defence Secretary has said that Saddam Hussein should back down or "face the consequences". What discussions have taken place on the range of options now available to ensure Iraqi compliance with those UN resolutions agreed after the Gulf War? Does the Minister agree that, whatever options are chosen, they must end once and for all this dangerous see-saw of defiance which is so damaging to the authority of the international community? Furthermore, what information does the Minister have to support Richard Butler's belief that the present situation is the most serious confrontation between Iraq and the United Nations since the end of the Gulf War?
I welcome the Minister's statement that all options are being kept open. Will she confirm that clear strategic objectives will lie behind any threat of air-strikes? What discussions have been held with the other members of the Security Council on the military option, in particular with France and Russia? What indications are there that they would support the threat of such action? What steps will the Government take to ensure that a resolute stance against Iraq will be backed by the Gulf states?
I also wish to ask the Minister about allegations made by the Iraqi defector, Sami Salih. He alleged that there was wholesale breaching of UN economic sanctions; that Iraq never had any intention of complying with the terms of the UN weapons inspection teams; and that he had seen "missiles hidden all over Iraq". Following those allegations, what action did the Government take through the UN to ensure that economic sanctions are watertight and that arms inspectors could continue unimpeded?
Finally, will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on the resignation of Mr. Butler's deputy, Scott Ritter? In September he accused the British and American governments of weakness and duplicity; of creating an illusion of arms control in Iraq but in reality refusing to support planned inspections of presidential sites. In September, a Foreign Office spokesman responded to Mr. Ritter's accusations by saying,
"it is not a question of going soft on Iraq. It is simply that new tactics are required so that we can achieve the desired result of disarming Saddam".
Will the Minister tell the House what those new tactics were, and, in the light of this week's events, what success they have achieved?
5.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the sentiment expressed in the Statement. It is totally unacceptable that the Government of Iraq should have weapons of mass destruction at their disposal at any time.
One position not stated was what steps the Government are taking to push the Secretary-General to intervene personally in this dispute. He was successful in February in bringing Iraq back into line on the question of monitors. Could the Secretary-General, after his trip to the western Sahara to examine the future of that country, be pushed to intervene directly in Iraq?
At present Iraq is suffering under the penalty of sanctions; the sanctions are biting deeply into the daily lives of those who live there. I supported the point made that the Government have no animosity towards the people of Iraq. However, it must not be forgotten that many thousands of children are dying through a lack of medicines and food. What position are the Government taking in order to ensure that food given to Iraq through the oil-for-food deal is being distributed equally? A body of evidence suggests that, while quite a lot of food is reaching the area around Baghdad and the north, far less is reaching the south of the country.
The military option seems to be touted as the only one open to us. Will the Government make sure that, before the military option is used, there is a clear purpose to any military action? The lessons learnt from the attack on Sudan are still fresh in the mind.
What ability do the Armed Forces presently have to mount significant attack? To what extent would it be necessary to wait for such forces to be available? I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer that question.
Finally, we should not forget the effect that military action would have on the Arab nations and on their viewpoint and support for Saddam Hussein. A strike without clear political and military objectives which was seen to hurt the Iraqi people rather than the Iraqi leadership could do far more damage than good among the Arab nations.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their support on this issue. Perhaps I may reiterate on behalf of my right honourable friend that all options are being kept open. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, seemed to imply that we were moving quickly towards military action; on the other, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, needed a little reassurance that military action had not been ruled out. There is a diplomatic path which is presently being pursued. But I repeat what my right honourable friend has said; namely, that no options are closed off. All options are therefore open, including the military one. But it is right and proper to pursue the diplomatic paths properly first.
I agree wholeheartedly with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that Saddam Hussein is picking a fight with the Security Council of the United Nations. He has in effect broken his solemn word given to Kofi Annan earlier this year.
180
Our current efforts in the Security Council are aimed at sending a firm message to Saddam Hussein that he will not achieve his aim of securing the lifting of sanctions by defying the Security Council—by defying in effect the will of the international community. That is what we are presently working towards in the wording that is being discussed in the Security Council. We are looking for the path of effective diplomacy. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are fully resolved on this issue. We are of course taking one step at a time in that diplomatic effort.
Both noble Lords raised the question of military capability in that part of the world. The fire power that Her Majesty's Government have is the same fire power that we had earlier this year. Different parts have been moved in and out, but the capability remains the same as it was earlier this year. If it comes to military action—and I am sure that all your Lordships hope that that will not be the case—there will be clear strategic objectives and all the options will be discussed.
I was asked particularly about the Gulf states. On 27th October Foreign Ministers of the EU and the Gulf Co-operation Council member states issued a joint communiqué supporting the full implementation of all Security Council resolutions. It is clear that, like us, the Middle East governments would prefer a diplomatic solution, but they are aware of Saddam's record and the threat that he poses. They insist that he must comply with the Security Council resolutions and that he will be responsible if he fails to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of Mr. Scott Ritter's resignation. We all share Mr. Ritter's frustration with the years of Iraqi attempts to thwart UNSCOM and in particular with Iraq's latest decision to restrict still further its already limited co-operation. But Security Council support for UNSCOM remains firm. It is not for us to judge Mr. Ritter's decision to resign, but we regret the loss of a dedicated and experienced member of UNSCOM.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right that there is still work for UNSCOM to do. The October report of UNSCOM made clear that there was still work to do on chemical weapons, ballistic weapons and especially biological weapons. The latest six-monthly IAEA report in October indicated its assessment that all outstanding questions should continue to be addressed under the ongoing monitoring and verification process.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the question of Mr. Kofi Annan's involvement. The Security Council is at the moment discussing the resolution. The Secretary General will be kept fully abreast, no doubt on an almost hourly basis, of how the discussions are continuing.
Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront of trying to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to where it is needed in Iraq. We have done everything we can with regard to the oil-for-food provisions. While those provisions have been increased to some 10 billion dollars, food and medicines were in any case exempt from sanctions. I would regret it enormously if children were suffering in any part of Iraq, but the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, must put the blame where it belongs, fully and squarely at the doorstep of Saddam Hussein.
5.34 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we are in a pickle, are we not? I suspect that Saddam Hussein will run true to form and behave as he has in the past. We shall then get very cross and he will be bombed. Because he is bombed, he will not allow any monitors in the country. The terrible dilemma is that we should never dare to use the ultimate amount of force which would be necessary, which is to put infantrymen on the bridges in Baghdad. That would be the only way to take control. You can bomb until you are blue in the face, but it will be no use except in support of forces on the ground, when it would be sensible. I do not say this to embarrass anyone. When we consider the force option we should think about what would happen if we bombed Saddam and he ignored it and carried on behaving as he had before. A few factories would have been bombed and the RAF would have had a lovely time practising bombing. That is the danger which we face.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the RAF would at all enjoy such a dreadful task, if it came to it. The position is extremely grave, but I stress that this is not a time to project forward to what may or may not happen on a military basis, particularly in an open debate in your Lordships' House. Diplomacy is now taking its course in the appropriate forum, which is the United Nations Security Council. I have made clear that all options remain open and that those options include the military option. It is the responsibility of all of us to consider the strategic points put forward by the noble Earl.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the government Statement this time has achieved a new level of irenic tone in that it seems to be hoping for international law to prevail without violence. On many earlier occasions a hankering after a final solution by force of arms has been detectable. The Government are to be congratulated on having used their chairmanship of the Security Council to achieve such a just, equitable and law-abiding approach to this new crisis. Can the Government now take one step further forward and say that force will not be used without a new United Nations Security Council resolution? If such a resolution is available, the use of force would undoubtedly be legal; if it is not available, the use of force in such circumstances would not be undoubtedly legal.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, throughout this whole unhappy saga the Government have always hoped for a non-violent solution to this problem. The Government hope today for a non-violent solution to this problem. In that respect the position of Her Majesty's Government has remained consistent throughout. I can assure my noble friend Lord Kennet that Her Majesty's Government will not act unlawfully.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the Minister perhaps understating her enthusiasm for what she described as positive improvements in access to food and medicines? Is it not the case that there was a serious interruption of aid from humanitarian agencies in June
182
and July and that the Iraqi Foreign Ministry then allowed goods into the country? If there has been some change of heart by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, does she see any sinister motives in that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not for me to look into the mind of Saddam Hussein for sinister motives. He has a consistent record of preferring to exploit the suffering of his own people rather than of allowing the international community to help the people of Iraq. I repeated what my right honourable friend said in another place. It is the United Nations that has confirmed that, as a result of the changes made in the oil-for-food arrangements, there have been positive improvements in access to food and medicine in Iraq. That is a report of the United Nations, not of Her Majesty's Government. We must all hope that it is true. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out, there may be parts of Iraq to which the benefits of the aid are not getting through. I am afraid that that would be entirely consistent with what we have seen of the way in which Saddam Hussein has behaved in the past. There are parts of Iraq which clearly do not have access in the way that more favoured areas do.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while expressing my support for the Government's present attitude, does the Minister agree that we cannot discuss this situation either in terms of the activities of the Iraqi government in producing weapons of mass destruction. or in terms of the provision of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq—which all of us must wish to see—without recognising the cardinal fact that the Saddam Hussein regime is not a government as understood in international law? It is a group of people who have seized power, who maintain it by ruthless elimination of all elements of opposition, actual or even potential, and upon whose word nothing can be placed.
We are not dealing with a country which may commit aggression against or threaten a neighbour; we are dealing with something which is beyond that kind of consideration. One can only sympathise with Her Majesty's Government and the other members of the United Nations who have to try, through the admitted procedures, to frame their position while always recollecting the truth of the situation: that as long as this regime persists the danger to the international community and the sufferings of the Iraqi people will continue.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, as far as both weapons of mass destruction and humanitarian aid are concerned.
Iraq has maintained that it has never weaponised VX. That claim has been shown to be untrue by the United States' tests on warhead fragments. In addition, those tests have been verified by further tests in France and Switzerland. Those who claim that this is merely the word of the United States, have seen that word corroborated by other analyses in Switzerland and France. That demonstrates that the word of Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted by the international community.

183
Moreover, the humanitarian situation in Iraq is very grave indeed. We have already discussed the position concerning humanitarian aid, but the extent of human rights abuse in Iraq is very grave indeed, as Mr. Van Der Stoel's latest report has exposed. The violations include arrest, summary execution, torture, ethnic cleansing, the persecution of minorities and denial of freedom of speech. The list is endless.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Iraq falls very far short of the standards that the international community expects.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I acknowledge entirely the point that the Minister has made about the possibility of all options being considered. Does she agree that the contribution which the armed forces make to the overall position of Her Majesty's Government is absolutely essential, and that the arming, equipping and manning of the armed forces—in this case particularly the Royal Air Force—to achieve the position required is essential?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and gallant Lord. The contribution made by Her Majesty's armed forces—and in this instance particularly by the RAF—is absolutely vital in maintaining the credible threat of force. We have seen a consistent pattern of Saddam Hussein not complying with the diplomatic effort unless he believes that the credible option of force is open to us. I know that on occasions I have been reluctant to discuss in detail in your Lordships' House the equipment and dispositions of the armed forces. The noble and gallant Lord will fully understand the reasons for that. He is entirely right that the armed forces must be properly equipped for the very grave task that they may have to undertake.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I support the Government's Statement, and in particular the imposition of sanctions. I have two questions for the noble Baroness. First, how effective have those sanctions been? Secondly, does she know of any nation or company which is breaking the sanctions? If so, what representations will Her Majesty's Government make to the United Nations in order to discourage and dissuade those countries and firms from breaking the sanctions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no information on particular companies. I will make inquiries and, if it is possible to put any information into the public arena on that issue, I shall write to the noble Earl and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. I do not know whether such sanctions have been broken; nor whether Her Majesty's Government have information on that issue or whether it is proper for such information to come into the public arena. I shall make inquiries.
The noble Earl asked how effective have these sanctions been? One could argue that the sanctions have been effective to the extent that Saddam Hussein has been contained within his ambitions concerning
184
weapons of mass destruction. We have seen on many occasions—three notably within the past year or so—his efforts to break beyond the sanctions. But sanctions have been very effective in keeping under control his overwhelming regional ambitions.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty facing the Government, the United States' Government and all those who are concerned—as we should be—at the prospect of Saddam Hussein retaining weapons of mass destruction. We have surely reached the point where we cannot afford to mobilise ourselves and our opinions once again—this will be the third time this year—and then make an obvious compromise which would, I fear, undermine the credibility of the United Nations and, indeed, the credibility of the United States and the United Kingdom.
My strong feeling is—and I hope my noble friend can assure me on this point—that if we are not prepared to back up our words with deeds, we should on this occasion decline to mobilise ourselves in the pretence that we are going to do so. We cannot afford to bluff any more. I hope that the Government will make the correct decision to demand from Saddam Hussein really bankable assurances before we agree the next time not to use the force that might well be required.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of bankable assurances from an individual who has been proved to have lied on a number of occasions may be a very tall order. I assure the noble Lord that this is not a question of bluffing anybody. Her Majesty's Government are firmly resolved on this issue. The noble Lord said that we cannot afford to mobilise ourselves and then make a compromise. In a sense, of course, we are already mobilised. As I was able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, our firepower remains ready and in place should it be needed. That firepower is the same now as it was earlier this year.
It is right for Her Majesty's Government to pursue the path of diplomacy. It would not be right to move straight to the option of force without looking at the diplomatic option first. But no one should be in any doubt that the exploration of that diplomatic option is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of wanting to ensure that no military action is taken unless it is absolutely necessary. We are all very well aware that once force is used there will be the potential for loss of life. That is a very grave step to take—it is a very grave step to take for our Armed Forces and a very grave step to take for the people of Iraq. It is right and proper that we pursue the diplomatic option first but no one—no one in your Lordships' House and certainly no one in Iraq—should be in any doubt that we will look at other options if that does not prove to do the trick.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it may not be a coincidence that this brazen statement of Saddam Hussein has been made at a time when the United States has been weakened by the threatened impeachment of its President? While that matter must be one for the American people and for the American Congress, can she, through the diplomatic

185
channels which are so tactful in these matters, inform the United States of what a tragedy it is that at this critical time in world history its President has been placed in that position?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think it is quite a matter for question and speculation whether the United States has been weakened by the threatened impeachment of the President. If the United States opinion polls are anything to go by, that question is open to a good deal of analysis. I am not in a position—I do not believe anyone in your Lordships' House is in a position—to judge what is motivating Saddam Hussein to take this action at this time. We know that he started down this path in August. He was given further options, as my right honourable friend's Statement in another place described and as I have been able to tell your Lordships. Only this weekend he has made it clear that he will no longer co-operate with UNSCOM. Why now? There may be a whole range of reasons. The fact is that we are where we are. The international community has been threatened by Saddam Hussein, the authority of Kofi Annan has been undermined and it is now up to the international community through the United Nations Security Council to try every diplomatic course open to us to make the position clear to Saddam Hussein that he simply cannot behave like this.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I have to admit to slight surprise when I heard what the noble Baroness said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shore. Will she confirm what she said that there has been no diminution in the capacity of this country and other countries of the United Nations to take military action—no diminution in military terms in their ability so to do?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord's surprise was in relation to what I said about the fire power available. I have taken advice on this point. It is quite an obvious point for us to raise at the moment. The assurance I have given to the noble Lord is one I was given before making the Statement to your Lordships' House today. If there is any reason for me to review that assurance, I shall of course make that position clear. I shall write to the noble Lord and make that clear. But the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, was, as I understand the position, in relation to Her Majesty's forces. I cannot at the moment answer the question in relation to other fire power available.

Scotland Bill
5.54 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 5.
[Amendment No. 208A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 208B:
Page 69, leave out lines 32 to 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those who quite rightly are somewhat eagle-eyed when we come to discuss amendments will have noticed that this is the second time I have brought this amendment before the House. There is no mystery about that. It is simply that, despite speaking at great length about the package of technical amendments of which this was one, when it came to its place on the Marshalled List it was not actually moved. I apologise to the House for that and hope at this stage that the House will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 208C:
Page 71, line 11, after ("1") insert ("to 3 and 5").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment amends the provisions of the reservation of entertainment under Section 5, Head 2 of Schedule 5. It provides that Section 4 of the Cinemas Act 1985 is not covered by the reservation. The reason for the amendment is simple. The reservation is intended to cover the licensing of premises for use for film exhibitions and classification of films and videos. It is not intended to cover matters relating to public safety such as fire safety or building standards. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 208DA:
Page 71, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
("The interception of communications; but not the subject-matter of Part III of the Police Act 1997 (authorisation to interfere with property etc.) or surveillance not involving interference with property.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 208E:
Page 71, leave out lines 30 and 31.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 72, line 3, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The distribution in Scotland of the New Opportunities Fund raised by the National Lottery.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee I wanted to move the whole of the expenditure of National Lottery money to the control of the new Scottish executive. However, in the light of that debate, I have decided to come back with an amendment which is very much more tightly drawn and refers only to the New Opportunities Fund. Your Lordships will know that there is an arts fund, a sports fund, a heritage fund, a charities fund and now there is the New Opportunities Fund.
In answering the debate in Committee on 23rd July the Minister was very helpful. He said that there would be mechanisms for Scottish Ministers to exercise appropriate powers of direction over the New Opportunities Fund's activities in Scotland while

187
keeping control at the UK level. The problem is this. The arts fund money and the sports fund money will be distributed by Scottish bodies which will be appointed by the Scottish executive. When we come to the heritage fund and the charities fund, those are cross-border bodies and I am content with the arrangements that are in hand for Scottish nominees to be on the bodies and for the ability of the Scottish executive, and therefore the Scottish parliament, to make suggestions to the two bodies. However, the New Opportunities Fund is different in this regard. It will pay out money for health and education.
I said in Committee that when I sat on the Back Benches during the passage of the National Lottery Bill I heard a great deal from the Labour Party about the need to make sure that the Government did not use National Lottery money as a substitute for money that should be paid out from general taxation. The Government at that time gave assurances that that would not happen and they kept their word until the election. We are now in a position where National Lottery money is to be used for health, education and childcare.
I am not arguing whether or not that is right. I happen to believe that it is not because it is a breach of the undertakings given by the then government and sought by the present government when the National Lottery Bill was being considered that money would not be used to fund matters that should be paid for by general taxation. I accept that that is water under the bridge. My concern is that education, health and childcare are devolved entirely to the Scottish parliament; they are matters entirely for the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. It seems odd that money can be spent in those areas by the New Opportunities Fund in Scotland without the Scottish executive having the same control over the expenditure of that money as the UK Government. I should like to see the New Opportunities Fund treated more akin to arts and sport and bodies appointed by the Scottish executive in Scotland specifically to spend the new opportunities money on Scottish education, health and childcare, taking account of Scottish priorities and the different Scottish stance on those three issues. It would be much more satisfactory to go down that route and have Scottish bodies concerned with arts and sport than to have cross-border bodies despite all of the assurances given to me by the Minister. He told me that there would be internal structures and that the New Opportunities Fund would be sensitive to the Scottish interest. I accept all of that in good faith. However, we should treat the New Opportunities Fund in the same way as we treat arts and sport and set up a free-spending body in Scotland to spend the money in that fund in Scotland according to the priorities of Scottish education, health and childcare.
I would quite understand the position of the Government if these issues had not been devolved. However, because they have been devolved the New Opportunities Fund should follow. I believe this to be a fairly straightforward arrangement. No doubt I shall receive further assurances from the Minister. But I remain puzzled as to why this important new fund is not to be treated in the same way as the arts and sports
188
funds and Scottish bodies are not to be set up to spend the money in Scotland along the lines of the very different Scottish education, health and childcare systems. I believe that that would make common sense. I hope that I shall make some progress on this matter with the Minister. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I support my noble friend in this amendment. When the National Lottery Bill came before your Lordships' House at Committee stage in particular I raised this very point with the Minister. I should place on record his letter dated 4th March this year in which he provided me with a great deal of additional detail and spelt out the arrangements for a degree of involvement by the Scottish executive in the way in which National Lottery funds would be disbursed in Scotland. However, grateful as I am to him for that information, he did not and could not answer the central question. He was able to say:
"The allocation of resources will follow an approach appropriate to each initiative, which may include Barnett where that is the right approach".
To that extent some reassurance is proffered by the Minister. However, the central point remains unanswered. Health, education and environment are at the very centre of the responsibilities to be given to the Scottish parliament, but only the Secretary of State, a Member of the Westminster Parliament, will be in a position to give directions. I understood that the central justification for devolution was that, while this Parliament and the Secretary of State within it might wish to promote initiatives and to give directions or propose a particular policy approach, for their own good reasons the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive might prefer to re-order those priorities. They might prefer children's education to health. The policy point is not important but they might wish to re-order those priorities.
As I understand the answer given to me, there will be a degree of involvement by the Scottish executive and if an initiative is to be pursued it will be for the Scottish executive, for example, to prefer charity A to charity B as the body to take forward the initiative but the setting of the initiative is for the Secretary of State within the Westminster Parliament. That seems to me to be one of the most extraordinary anomalies that has arisen over this legislation. One might better understand it if this had been a provision in the original National Lottery legislation, but the Bill that came before Parliament set up a scheme of arrangements in advance of which this Bill had already been published. It is quite astonishing that this matter has not yet been properly dealt with. I support my noble friend in suggesting that this is a matter to be left to the Scottish parliament.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie in protesting about the position of the National Lottery relative to Scotland. Noble Lords are aware that there were originally five good causes and a sixth good cause

189
was added. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, I protested about that in Committee. The position is now worse in that following the millennium all moneys in the Millennium Fund will go into the New Opportunities Fund.
Noble Lords on this side of the House maintained throughout the passage of the National Lottery legislation introduced by the previous government—with tremendous success for so many voluntary organisations throughout the United Kingdom—the arm's length principle so that there was no direct government involvement. Organisations were set up to disburse the money and the Government did not have a direct say in the distribution of it.
Now the New Opportunities Fund will be administered by civil servants and will be subject to the direct control of Ministers. I believe that that is unfortunate and absolutely wrong, particularly when the Government have said that the New Opportunities Fund will be to provide direct support for a range of education, environment and public health projects. All of those issues should be dealt with by direct taxation, not by milking the lottery, which was set up for voluntary good causes: charities, heritage, sport and the arts. All of that is working very well. I am disappointed that the Government have introduced a sixth fund by which they avoid spending government money on those matters which should be the responsibility of government. They are taking money from the lottery to save the taxpayer having to pay directly for matters for which they should be directly responsible.
Having indicated my displeasure at the introduction of a sixth fund, my noble friend is absolutely right that this matter should be administered in Scotland. I was somewhat concerned to read in the press that the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider allowing communities in Scotland to buy land in order to set up local land trusts. I believe that that is pretty far removed from the original objectives and principles of the National Lottery Act.
One hopes that the Secretary of State will think again about his use of the sixth fund. But it is right that it should be administered in Scotland where at least it will be much more obvious where the money is coming from and going to than it would be if it was administered by skeleton staff in the Secretary of State's office in Whitehall. I believe that what my noble friend has suggested is the right way forward and I hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall not express a view on whether or not the New Opportunities Fund is a good idea. However, I believe that the measure raises unnecessary controversy between Westminster and Holyrood. The fund will supplement budgets of the Scottish parliament. The suggestion that any body other than the Scottish parliament will formulate policies and decide how the money is to be spent is extraordinary. It could distort some of the policies which the parliament proposes.
190
It is a small change that could make a big difference and the Government should consider it. From the point of view of the Scottish parliament the measure will be extremely irritating and may raise controversy.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I declare an indirect interest as my husband is chairman of the Scottish Arts Council. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, raised important elements and issues of doubt about the exact role and function of the New Opportunities Fund. When lottery money is being used as a substitute for government funding there is perhaps a blurring of the distinction between additionality, additional funding, and subsidiary.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, under Chris Smith, is responsible for the guidelines which are followed when lottery money is administered. In Scotland, a proportional amount of money is allocated to each of the strands. This final strand is currently the sixth good cause, at least until the Millennium Fund is wound up.
While it is an attractive notion that the Scottish parliament should make its own decisions—that is what we have been talking about throughout the Bill—and decide on its own guidelines according to the perceived needs of Scots by Scots, there is less point in devolving one of the strands in isolation. How would it be disentangled from the rest? I believe that there is greater merit in having unity of purpose and some synergy between the various strands of grant allocation.
I believe that until the Scottish parliament can address the total picture from the Scottish perspective it is preferable to stick to the current arrangement and have lottery guidelines for all the good causes determined at Westminster.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the reservation of the National Lottery as a single UK-wide lottery offers the largest possible prize fund and the highest possible return to good causes in the United Kingdom. The basic idea is to keep the lottery as a UK-wide organisation and entity. A single UK-wide National Lottery distribution fund is an extremely important part of a single National Lottery.
The distribution arrangements have been discussed at length in another place and it makes no sense at all to attempt to introduce separate arrangements for only one of the six good causes. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. However, it is right and proper that we recognise the legitimate interests which the Scottish parliament and executive will have in ensuring that Scotland receives its fair share of all lottery proceeds and that Scottish circumstances are fully taken into account in the distribution arrangements in Scotland. With the recent announcement that the New Opportunities Fund will receive one third of lottery proceeds after 2001, it is particularly vital that the initiatives that will be funded from it take cognisance of Scottish interests and priorities.
In the first place, the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended, guarantees a place on the New Opportunities Fund for a member who is suited to make

191
the interests of Scotland his or her special care. Scottish Ministers, will have a particular interest in that appointment and I can assure noble Lords that that interest will be recognised. We are currently considering precise arrangements which will fully meet Scottish requirements and at the same time be compatible with the character of the lottery as a UK institution.
The first three initiatives to be funded from the New Opportunities Fund—healthy living centres, IT training for teachers and out-of-school hours activities—are all UK-wide initiatives. However, they will take Scotland's distinctive needs fully into account. In particular, Scotland will receive a very favourable share of the funds accruing to each; 11.5 per cent. for healthy living and child care initiatives and 10 per cent. for IT training. These allocations recognise Scotland's distinctive needs, in particular in terms of relative deprivation and health records. By having a national fund rather than allocating money to a separate Scottish fund on a per capita basis or on one which reflects the lottery's income, and by identifying the main themes, it is possible fully to recognise the relative need of Scotland in relation to those initiatives. It amply demonstrates how Scotland can benefit from the flexibility of current arrangements.
By contrast, if the distribution of the funds of the New Opportunities Fund were to be devolved, the allocation to Scotland would have to be set much less flexibly and probably less favourably from Scotland's point of view; for instance, on a simple population index Scotland would receive only 8.9 per cent. of the income.
The initiatives I have mentioned are only the first which the New Opportunities Fund will fund. The success of the lottery is such that already consideration is being given to what future initiatives might be funded. A consultation paper on this will be issued within the next few weeks. It is of course quite possible that an initiative might emerge which is primarily, or even exclusively, of concern to Scotland. Indeed, the opportunity currently exists. We have identified the possibility of an environmental initiative under Green Spaces. That can be given a particular twist in recognition of the precise environmental interests in Scotland, which may not be identical to environmental interests in England. The idea of a Scottish initiative, rather than being ruled out, is compatible with the current arrangements. I assure noble Lords that we are giving serious consideration to the way in which the views and roles of Scottish Ministers can be best expressed and carried through.
I believe that we have the best of all possible worlds. We have a national institution. Its public attraction stems from the fact that it is national and can generate—let us be honest—a big prize. That brings many people into the lottery. We do not wish to fragment that. The existing distribution arrangements mean that UK-wide initiatives can be funded. The money, when distributed, can take account of particular Scottish interests,
192
priorities and relative need, which is an appropriate mix and a good way forward. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government's view on this matter. However, I remain puzzled. If the New Opportunities Fund is to deal with education, health, childcare and the environment, I do not see how it can have UK-wide initiatives. All these matters are entirely devolved to the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. Therefore, unless the Scottish executive twin with the UK Government, there can be no UK-wide initiative in any of those areas. I suspect that that is a matter which people will have to get used to. Many people do not yet appreciate that simple fact about devolution.
I hear what the Minister says about the involvement of the Scottish executive with the people who run the New Opportunities Fund. In the light of the fact that the disbursement of the National Lottery money is already on a Scottish basis on two issues, it seems odd that the Government should stand firm against the New Opportunities Fund and go down the same route.
I remind the Minister of what he said on 23rd July. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, does not seem to realise this point either. He stated:
"Distribution of lottery funds for the arts and sport is handled by Scotland-only bodies. Their members are appointed at present by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also responsible for the issue of financial policy direction to those bodies. … In future these tasks will fall to Scottish Ministers. In other words, complete control over the membership of Scottish arts and sports councils will rest with Scottish Ministers and they will be able to direct the councils on matters of policy without reference to Whitehall and Westminster. In addition, Scottish Ministers will, if they choose, be able to appoint other bodies to act as distributors of the arts and sports shares".—[Official Report, 23/7/98; col. 1084.]
I remain puzzled as to why what is good enough for the arts and sports, and already exists, is not good enough for the New Opportunities Fund, which relates entirely to issues which are being devolved.
I suspect that somewhere down the line there may be friction on that issue. I have tried to warn the Government about this, as has my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. However, I can see that I am not making any progress. I hope the Minister is right and that this will work happily. However, if it does not and it ends in friction between Edinburgh and Westminster, as my noble friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour suggested it might, dare I say to the Minister that he heard it from us first? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 210 to 213 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 75, line 19, at end insert (", including all aspects of digital signatures").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It deals with modern technology. Digital signatures are necessary to identify the senders of an electronic message. Encryption is the coding of the electronic message so that it cannot be accessed by an

193
unauthorised person. The recipient must know its point of origin. Just down the road, in the War Cabinet Rooms, Winston Churchill's messages to President Roosevelt were scrambled. They were put into a jumbled noise which was then unscrambled at the other end. It was Professor Alan Turing who broke the Nazi Enigma code and contributed greatly to allied successes. So, encryption is certainly not a new idea.
This amendment clarifies the definition of electronic encryption which is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. It would ensure that digital signatures are also reserved. There is a growing awareness that commerce and secret commercial decisions, conducted through the exchange of messages on open computer networks, are likely to increase enormously in both volume and value.
A common assumption in all analyses is that since the delivery of electronic messages is on open networks, by definition they are not wholly secure. People dealing with each other in a business sense need to have security in both the identity of the sender and the integrity of the message.
The widely stated view of industries, governments and professions is that those requirements can be met only by means of two independent but closely associated procedures; namely, the attachment and recognition of electronic signatures, and the strong encryption of the message. The framework within which reliability can be added to electronic or digital signatures and encryption is now perceived to be by the use of one or more asymmetric encryption keys issued within a public key infrastructure. However, other forms of ensuring security are being discussed and will no doubt be developed.
In effect, asymmetric public private encryption keys are issued to a user by a certification authority after due inquiry. Messages encrypted and decrypted by those keys may be relied on at the time of use if a reliable authority—that is the certification authority which issues and certifies the public and private keys which constitute the key pair—can itself be relied upon in the manner in which it carried out its functions and to the extent to which it is recognised by higher authorities in any vertical scheme of mutual recognition.
Those matters can best be regulated on a global scale. Regulation by the Westminster Parliament should, however, extend to digital signatures. In view of the reasonableness of the amendment, I hope that the Minister is able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's desire to ensure that digital signatures are included in the reservation on encryption. I can assure the noble Lord that digital signatures are in fact included as an area of policy reserved for the United Kingdom. It is therefore not necessary to refer explicitly to digital signatures in this schedule.
As the noble Lord observed, encryption has long been used by banks and is an essential tool for electronic commerce. Its uses include keeping electronic data—ranging from an e-mail that might be sent over the Internet to a file stored on a floppy disc—confidential.
194
Another use, which is at issue here, is to prove that an electronic document was sent by someone holding a particular code and that the document has not since been altered. In other words cryptography can be used as an electronic signature.
I wish to point out that the Notes on Clauses state that electronic encryption covers the general use of encryption of communications or data in electronic form for the purposes of commercial confidentiality and authentication. The word "authentication", which means verifying who originated an e-mail or an electronic document, clearly relates to the use of encryption as an electronic signature. There is, therefore, no need to make this amendment.
Furthermore, I should point out to the noble Lord that a distinction is usually made between the terms "electronic signature" and "digital signature". Briefly, "electronic signature" has a wider meaning than "digital signature". So all digital signatures are electronic signatures, but not vice versa. The effect of this amendment might therefore be to limit the reservation to digital signatures but not electronic signatures. I doubt that this is what the noble Lord intends. In view of those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, in view of the encouraging reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the Bill as drafted covers digital signatures, I do not wish to press this matter. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 214A and 214B:
Page 75, line 23, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 25 and insert ("Part III of the Police Act 1997 (authorisation to interfere with property etc.)").
Page 75, leave out lines 30 to 33.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 76, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) the subject-matter of section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972 (contributions in connection with mineral exploration) so far as relating to exploration for oil and gas,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 215C and 226D.
Amendment No. 226D clarifies that the Scottish parliament can legislate on financial assistance to industry for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment. That would, among other things, enable the parliament to make provision of a general nature which permits such assistance to industries, including those which operate in reserved areas. The parliament will not, however, have competence to legislate for such assistance specifically in relation to a reserved commercial activity.
Clause 52 lists powers which are to continue to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown despite the Clause 49 transfer of functions. Amendments Nos. 215A and 215C simply clarify the extent to which financial assistance under Section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972 and under Sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 will transfer under Clause 49 and, therefore, be exercisable concurrently by virtue of the references to those provisions in Clause 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 215B:
Page 76, line 39, leave out ("deposits in the sea") and insert ("activities").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during Committee the Government tabled, and the House accepted, an amendment to the oil and gas reservation reserving Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 so far as it relates to oil and gas exploration and exploitation in relation to deposits in the sea outside controlled waters. The purpose of that amendment was to remove any doubt that the oil and gas reservation should catch operational discharges from oil and gas installations and the deposit in the sea of oil-related articles such as redundant oil installations which are potentially subject to regulation under Part II of the Act.
Our earlier understanding had been that "deposits in the sea" would cover all types of potentially polluting activity relating to oil and gas exploration and exploitation covered by that Act. However, we have reflected further on this point and we now consider that this may not be the case and that it would be safest to use the word "activities". The use of the word "activities" instead of "deposits in the sea" makes it clear, for example, that the flaring and incineration of waste gas and fugitive emissions are also covered by the reservation. This amendment is merely clarificatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 215C:
Page 77, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 (credits and grants for construction of ships and offshore installations),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 216A:
Page 78, leave out line 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, grants in respect of bus fuel duty rebate were previously regarded as a tax matter and, as such, it was right to reserve them. However, as a result of a ruling from the Office of National Statistics and the Treasury, grants in respect of bus fuel duty rebate have now been reclassified as public expenditure with responsibility for this expenditure transferred to the Scottish Office. In the circumstances, it is appropriate
196
that, following devolution, the Scottish parliament should also have responsibility for such grants in line with its general responsibility for bus policy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 78, line 15, at end insert—
("Tolls or charges for the use of Trunk Roads.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 218.
I start with Amendment No. 218. In Committee we discussed this matter and I believe that we were at cross-purposes. This part of the Bill seems to suggest, or at least to me it does, that the Scottish executive could decide to increase the amount of money which must be paid by an insurance company or, indeed, by an individual in respect of health treatment after a road accident. Currently, health boards may claim, up to a ceiling of £2,949, any money due for the treatment of a road accident casualty. That is normally paid by the vehicle insurance company.
In Committee, I was not arguing that the money should go to the UK Government. I am quite content that the money, up to the ceiling, should go to the Scottish health boards, as it does at present. I was concerned about the Scottish parliament and the executive having the power to increase that ceiling quite separately from the UK. That may create a situation in which in Scotland the ceiling was, for example, £5,000, whereas in England it was only £2,900. I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what consequences that would have on car premiums in Scotland.
I did not seem to be arguing my case very well. I did not manage to convey that the insurance companies might consider that they were open to greater liabilities, and therefore, as is the nature of insurance, the premiums would be increased to cover the liabilities. I asked whether I was right that that possibility existed and whether the Government had discussed those matters with the insurance companies. The noble and learned Lord was unable to help me with that. I suggested that the Government should reflect further on the issue. I have tabled this amendment to see whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can clarify the matter.
Have the insurance companies been consulted? Is there not a danger that they will load the premiums of Scottish drivers? If the Scottish parliament were to take that power and increase the payment demanded, would not the insurance companies then increase their premiums? They already increase the premiums depending on where one lives. If one lives in the centre of a city, the insurance companies, probably quite rightly, have decided that the danger of theft and accident is greater than if one lives in the countryside. Therefore, the premium is greater if one lives in the city. It is that loading about which I am concerned, if the delegated power means what it says.
I turn back to Amendment No. 217. I had not even thought about this matter until I saw an article in the Scotsman on Monday 19th October which told me that the Government were considering using the M.8 as a pilot scheme for road tolling by electronic means. The

197
suggestion there was that the Scottish Office would launch one of two pilot schemes for electronic charging in Britain on the M.8. It seemed to me a rather interesting prospect that the Scottish parliament, in search of more money, could introduce tolling on the trunk roads of Scotland in order to get more money from motorists. I believe that trunk roads should be dealt with on a UK basis and I hope that the UK Government are not considering making the Scottish motorist the test-bed for electronic charging.
Needless to say—and I shall not bore the Minister by reading it—Mr. Alex Salmond was already making hay on the basis of that proposition on 19th October and he would make even more hay if it came about. I want to be clear as to who would have the power to introduce electronic or other tolling on trunk roads in Scotland. Would that be something the Scottish parliament could do or would it be something which only the United Kingdom Parliament could do? My amendment proposes to reserve those matters to the United Kingdom Government. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for that explanation. I was quite curious to see what was the objective of his Amendment No. 217. I was interested to hear that it is to do with the idea of electronic tolls on the M.8. I shall not go into the question of test beds that he raised. I thought on from that and two points came to mind which I would like to put to the noble Lord. Perhaps he can answer them when he winds up on this matter.
I assume that the Scottish parliament will be responsible for the maintenance of all trunk roads and so forth because as far as I can see that does not appear to be a reserved matter but a fully devolved one. Therefore, whoever has responsibility for paying, if a toll is ever going to be raised anywhere, should equally have the responsibility for raising payment.
I wonder whether he has considered my second point. I presume that the Forth road bridge and the Skye bridge are both considered trunk roads. Therefore, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to reserve to Westminster any decision by the Scottish parliament as regards tolls on those two bridges. Given the great support in the Highlands for getting rid of the toll on the Skye bridge, I should imagine that is one thing he would like to leave to the Scottish parliament. Did the noble Lord consider that in framing his amendment?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on Amendment No. 218, to which my name is attached as well. I am concerned that we do not have a situation where there is unnecessary controversy between Scotland and England. If we have a situation where insurance companies are necessarily compounding the amount that they wish to charge as a premium to Scottish drivers over English drivers, that is a recipe for disaster. People drive across the Border from all directions. I earnestly hope that cognisance is taken of this amendment.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the amendments in the opposite order. As regards
198
Amendment No. 217, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, pointed out, its effect would be to reserve the responsibility for tolls or charges for the use of trunk roads. The Government find that unacceptable for two reasons. One of them is a reason put forward by the noble Viscount. The amendment would have the effect of separating responsibility for managing and maintaining the trunk road network from that of charging for using the network. As charging would have direct implications for management and maintenance, such as traffic flow, that does not strike us a sensible approach.
Secondly, the amendment would separate responsibility for charging on the trunk road network from the responsibility for charging on local roads. It will be clear to noble Lords that one has direct implications for the other. Therefore, there is a need for consistency in the application. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 218, despite the views expressed by both noble Lords, I am unable to accept it either. The effect of the amendment will be to reserve the provisions of the Road Traffic Act which deals with the recovery of payments towards the costs of treating road traffic casualties. The provisions of the 1988 Act clearly refer to the recovery of costs incurred by local hospitals and therefore they are concerned with health and not transport. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, accepts that it would be appropriate for the money to go to the local national health trust which incurred the treatment expenditure and not anywhere else. As health is a devolved matter, it would be inappropriate for this area of cost recovery and administration to be reserved.
I turn to the question of charging, which was the point of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Powers in relation to charges are exercised by health Ministers. The devolution of such powers would have the effect of giving Scottish Ministers the responsibility for setting charges which are commensurate with the treatment costs in Scotland rather than applying a UK average. The parliament will also be able to determine the most appropriate means for effecting recovery of the costs so that the National Health Service in Scotland can derive the maximum financial benefit from its ability to charge.
As regards the point raised about insurance companies, the Association of British Insurers is aware that, after devolution, Scotland will be able to apply different treatment charges to those applied in England. I am advised that it has raised no specific concerns about that possibility. With reference to the impact on motor insurance premiums, that is a matter for the companies themselves to assess in due course. But significant differences in the amounts which Scottish and English motorists would have to pay seem to us to be unlikely at this stage. The determining factor here is where the accident occurs and, therefore, where the injured person is treated. Clearly, that would apply to English and Scottish motorists.
For example, English tourists or people on business travelling in Scotland may have an accident there and be treated in Scotland. Their insurance companies would

199
have to pay the costs. Equally, there may be Scots injured in accidents and their insurance companies would pay the costs. The determining factor in this case is where the accident has occurred or where the person has been injured and treated and not where the motorist resides, which is the normal basis on which insurance is assessed. In any event, there is no question of people receiving different treatment simply because their accident occurred in England rather than in Scotland, or vice versa. With those explanations—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. There is a point which I do not believe has been raised. I ask the noble and learned Lord to look at page 78 of the Bill, lines 12 and 13, which read:
"The conditions under which international road transport services for passengers or goods may be undertaken".
That is a reserved matter. Unless the United Kingdom Government have control over the tolls or charges for the use of trunk roads, they will be unable to control the conditions mentioned there under which international road transport services will be undertaken. Therefore, if this amendment is not accepted, will there not be a contradiction on that point?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I do not think that there will be a contradiction. There is no intention of impeding the transportation of goods. It is simply that there may be charging for the use of trunk roads, just as there may well be charging for trunk roads in England for goods vehicles or others using the trunk roads.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the clarification. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the way the Government have decided the issues, but at least it is clear and now on the record in Hansard. As regards trunk roads, I entirely accept the argument and take the point that the Scottish parliament and executive will be able to put electronic tolls and charges, or any other kind of charges, on the Scottish road system. That will at least make it clear for the future who is responsible for these issues.
Concerning the point about health payments, from my side there is no argument that the money should go to the trusts in Scotland. We then moved on to the question of whether it would be possible for Scottish Ministers to increase the charges. The Minister has made it clear that it would be possible. Inevitably, that means that the premiums could go up in such circumstances. The fact that the Association of British Insurers is aware, but did not raise any concerns, is neither here nor there because it will pass on those concerns to the customers. It is very simple.
The argument was that a person from England visiting Scotland might be asked to pay higher charges. The insurance companies will live with that, as they will live with higher charges for Scottish drivers. The example I gave about Scottish or English drivers based in the countryside paying lower premiums because there was
200
less chance of accident or theft in the countryside than in the towns, does not mean that insurance companies walk away from someone if they visit a town or city and are involved in an accident or have their car stolen. Insurance companies live with that; it is the overall risk that they take into account. And the overall risk for somebody living in the countryside is less than for those living in the towns, even allowing for the fact that people in the countryside occasionally visit the towns and are subject to those greater risks.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate underlined my point rather than went against it. The insurance companies will have to "cough up" any extra money for somebody from England who has an accident in Scotland, and they will live with that. The point is that they will load the premiums of Scottish drivers and that is something the motorists and motoring organisations will have to watch out for; that is, that the Scottish parliament does not use it as a convenient way to raise more money for the health service by upping the amount of money paid to health boards from road accident victims and therefore from insurance companies. The moment that happens insurance companies will review their premium position and, if I were their actuary, I would advise them that they would have to review their premiums slightly upwards and Scottish motorists would have to pay higher premiums than they otherwise would.
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying these issues. The Government's intentions for both those amendments are now on the record, and we shall see what the Scottish parliament decides to do with those issues in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 81, line 2, leave out from first ("of") to ("Part") in line 3.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during Committee the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—temporarily not in his place—tabled an amendment to insert into the exceptions to the social security reservation a reference to Section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948. His argument was that, if Section 22 of that Act is to be excepted, then Section 26 ought also to be excepted as the two provisions are closely related and both deal with the provision of accommodation by local authorities and their powers to charge for such accommodation. We agreed to look further at the relationship between those two sections.
In considering Sections 22 and 26 it became clear to us that neither of those sections deals with matters covered by the social security reservation. Section 22 of the 1948 Act is about the provision of accommodation by local authorities and their powers to charge for that accommodation. The provisions of Section 22 are applied by Section 26 which enables local authorities to arrange for accommodation to be provided by the voluntary sector or private providers. Those sections are also applied in relation to the provision of accommodation by local authorities in Scotland under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The

201
provision of accommodation by local authorities and their powers to charge are not covered by the reservation and we have therefore decided to delete the reference to Section 22 altogether. I hope that meets with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Baroness kindly referred to my noble friend who is not in his place. Noble Lords will be aware that he has been one of the most assiduous attenders on this Bill through all its stages in your Lordships' House. While I do not have a clue as to what the amendment does, on his behalf I thank the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 218B:
Page 81, line 6, after ("children),") insert ("section 15 of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 (industrial injuries benefit).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 218B, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 218E.
Amendments Nos. 218B, and 218E, along with Amendment No. 145C to Clause 52, which we have already considered, make up a package of amendments relating to training for employment and job search and support to ensure that the former is devolved and the latter is reserved. The two amendments refine the job search and support and social security reservations in Schedule 5 in order to ensure that that policy is achieved.
Amendment No. 218B adds an exception to the reservation of social security matters to ensure that payments to persons undergoing training who have injured themselves are not a reserved matter. Amendment No. 218E adds an exception to the reservation of job search and support. It will except parts of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 relating to assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed persons and relating to the disclosure of information under the Act. Those matters would otherwise fall within the reservation of the subject matter of the 1973 Act but would not fall within the existing exception for training for employment. Your Lordships may be aware that the 1990 Act established Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Matters relating to the economic development agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which not only support economic development but also assist people to obtain training for employment and to establish themselves as self-employed, are also to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Government believe that this package presents a sensible split of legislative competence and an efficient and practical sharing of powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 218C:
Page 81, line 21, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The subject-matter of sections 1 to 7 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (aliment).
Interpretation
If section 30(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 (collection of payments other than child support maintenance) is not in force on the principal appointed day, it is to be treated for the purposes of this reservation as if it were.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we are concerned that the blanket reservation of the subject matter of the Child Support Acts may restrict the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament in relation to the law on aliment more than is intended. Aliment is that part of Scottish private law that deals with the obligations of one person to pay maintenance in respect of children and others. The Scottish parliament should be able to legislate on the general rules of Scottish private law, of which aliment is a part, in so far as they do not conflict with the law of child support.
We have particular concern that the reservation of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 30(1) and, prospectively, by Section 30(2) of the 1991 Act to collect maintenance other than child support maintenance would prevent the Scottish parliament from legislating generally in relation to the imposition of obligations of aliment and the assessment of the levels of aliment payable and from legislating generally as to the collection and enforcement of such aliment.
This amendment is therefore to clarify that the Scottish parliament will be able to legislate on aliment other than where it is superseded by the Child Support Acts.
The second part of Amendment No. 218C ensures that Section 30(2) of the Child Support Act 1991, which is not yet in force, can nonetheless be considered as part of the subject matter of the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 218D:
Page 81, line 28, leave out from ("authority") to ("persons") in line 29 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 218E:
Page 83, line 39, at end insert (", and
(b) the following sections of Part I of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 (Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise)—

(i) section 2(3)(c) (arrangements for the purpose of assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed persons), and

(ii) section 12 (disclosure of information).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 84, leave out lines 2 to 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 219, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220.
We discussed Amendment No. 219 in Committee but did not discuss these two issues taken together. Amendment No. 219 would remove from reservation the law on abortion and move it to the Scottish parliament. Amendment No. 220 seeks to reserve euthanasia. The amendments seem to be in opposite directions but that is

203
entirely because the Government's current policy in the Bill goes in opposite directions. Abortion is to be kept at Westminster whereas the law on euthanasia is to be devolved to the Scottish parliament.
The two issues have three things in common. First, they have a considerable moral dimension. Secondly, they involve the criminal law. Thirdly, they involve health. I do not believe that we are encompassing the moral dimension in legislation, so I can leave that to one side, except to underline the point that that is a common theme of both abortion and euthanasia. People have very strong feelings on both of those issues on moral grounds, one way or the other.
When one comes to setting up a Scottish parliament, one has to approach those two issues from a different attitude, and that with regard to the criminal law and to health. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at various stages in the progress of the Bill, has justified the decision to devolve something to the Scottish parliament or to keep something at Westminster from the point of view that one starts with the big picture, the great issues that have been devolved, and one then asks: Are these issues closer to the big issue of being devolved or closer to the big issue of being reserved?
Perhaps I may give an example. We have debated frequently the question of agriculture and fisheries and the interaction between the agricultural and fisheries policies in the United Kingdom and in the EU. Eventually, we obtained from the Government a clear statement of the position—that is, that the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are matters of foreign affairs, including matters relating to Europe and, therefore, have to follow that heading and will be dealt with by the United Kingdom Parliament. Other aspects of agriculture and fisheries which do not involve Europe, including the carrying out of the policy, may be devolved, but the actual policy will stay at Westminster because the broad heading of the negotiations with the EU is a Westminster decision.
In considering the two issues of abortion and euthanasia, we must now ask ourselves: Where does the criminal law go and where does health go? It seems to me right and proper that those two issues should follow those two broad headings. In this case, we do not even have a dilemma because both broad headings go to the Scottish parliament. The criminal law goes in its entirety to the Scottish parliament. Scots law will go to the Scottish parliament which will decide and legislate on matters relating to the criminal law. All those lovely Acts, such as the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act—and all sorts of other such legislation with which we have had pleasure in this House and in the other place—will go to the Scottish parliament. We do not argue about that. One of the key arguments in favour of having a Scottish parliament is that there will be a unique body of Scottish law.
Euthanasia and abortion also involve health—and health is to be devolved entirely to the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament will be entirely responsible for health, just as the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for it at present.
If one follows the principled approach to these matters, it seems clear that two issues, which involve both the criminal law and health, should be devolved to the Scottish parliament. The Government have accepted that in the case of euthanasia, but not in the case of abortion. That seems odd. Their only justification in Committee appeared to be that one could not have a different law on different sides of the Border. If that is the view taken by the Government, we should not be going down the road of devolution. The whole point about devolution is that it envisages the possibility of the Scottish parliament coming to a different conclusion regarding the position in Scotland from that reached by this Parliament in relation to England and Wales.
Indeed, on 4th May 1978, when the last devolution Bill was discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who then occupied the position of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said in relation to that Bill, that abortion should be devolved. In the debate on whether it should or should not be devolved, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, answering the point that it would be undesirable to have different legal provisions on either side of the Border, said:
"In the Government's view, this is what legislative devolution is all about. It would surely be a nonsense to exclude from devolution a field of law just because it raises a number of difficult issues.
It would, in my view, be insulting to suggest that the elected representatives of Scotland would not be responsible enough to deal with these issues and that they would fail to give proper weight to the feelings of the people of Scotland".—[Official Report, 4/5/78; cols. 487–88.]
I would go further and say that they would fail to give proper weight to the problem of different laws south of the Border, but they would have the decision in their own hands.
That seems perfectly sensible. If it is to be a parliament in which we are to have confidence—I do, although it does not seem, in this regard, that the Government do—I believe that it should be given the ability to make such decisions both on euthanasia and abortion.
One does not have to go back to 1978 to look for some help with this argument. I have only to go back to 5th October this year, to the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill. Discussing the question of whether or not abortion should be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said:
"The position is very simple. Abortion law comes under criminal justice. Criminal justice is a reserved power and therefore abortion is a reserved power … when responsibility for criminal justice and policing is passed to the Assembly, which it is our clear intention will be the case when the conditions are appropriate, responsibility for abortion will also pass to the Assembly… As I have said, the day that we transfer those powers, responsibility for abortion will be transferred as well".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; col. 228.]
Please can we have some consistency within Government? It is perfectly clear that in this Bill the responsibility for criminal law and for criminal justice is to be devolved. Following the logic that the Government explained on 5th October, abortion ought to be devolved because, as I have said, not only does that follow from what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said about the criminal law, but I believe that it also follows the health service point which I mentioned earlier.
It is totally illogical for the Government to maintain their current position in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. It is also illogical for them to have one policy on abortion and another on euthanasia, both of which affect the criminal law and the health service to a huge degree and both of which have a very large moral component.
I think that I have made the case. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for making the Government's policy so abundantly clear on 5th October. I look forward to consistency from the Government about devolution and I look forward to them accepting Amendment No. 219. If they do not accept Amendment No. 219, they should accept Amendment No. 220. If they do not, there is a suspicion that there is some other motive behind their actions. If there is some other motive, I should be deeply grateful if the Government would let us know. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly make clear our position in regard to the amendments. Abortion was discussed at some length in Committee. I believe that there was a Division and that noble Lords took a decision. In that respect, those of us on the Liberal Democrats Front Bench will accept the views expressed by the House in Committee. However, it will be a free vote for my noble friends and they may go whichever way their consciences take them.
On euthanasia, I find it rather odd that something that basically does not exist can be devolved or reserved. Euthanasia, whatever it may be as a concept, is not something that exists in law. We have manslaughter, culpable homicide, murder and all sorts of things, but one thing that we do not have is euthanasia, so I do not see how we can write it into the Bill.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment No. 219 as I opposed a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in Committee. As I said then, in dealing with timescale, circumstances and conditions to be met before termination can be carried out, the 1967 Act did not, and does not, differentiate between different parts of the country with the exception of Northern Ireland—a point to which I shall return. Throughout the UK common criteria and common conditions must be met before termination can take place. The arguments for justifying that decision are just as valid today as they were then. That view was supported by your Lordships' House when it substantially defeated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, by 88 votes to 45, after a debate which lasted one-and-a-half hours. I would have expected the decision of the House to be final. However, having said that, the fact that we are having the debate again gives me the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, during previous discussions and indeed today.
The noble Lord suggested that somehow myself and the two other noble Baronesses who spoke on this side of the House could not possibly have a view of the matter because we were new to the key arguments on devolution and, therefore, did not appreciate the real
206
effect of the amendment. I can only speak for myself. I am certainly not a recent convert to the question of devolution. Indeed, I have been a supporter of devolution and an active participant in the debates since the 1960s and 1970s when it was not quite as popular as it is now.
On the last occasion, the noble Lord went on to say that the debate was not just about whether one is for or against abortion—that is correct—but about a grown-up Scottish parliament taking serious decisions. It is serious for a woman to have to decide whether to have an abortion. Having taken that serious and distressing decision, whether it is carried out should not be determined by whether she has the money to travel across the Border in either direction. If women can afford to travel and pay for abortions that is fine, but if they cannot that fundamental right is denied them. It is that right that we are talking about today.
I am sorry but I must correct another inaccuracy by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he implied that I believed that the law in Scotland would be more restrictive. In fact, I appreciated that the medical profession in Scotland has a strong tradition of support for abortion. In 1996, the last year for which figures are available, the NHS in Scotland provided 99 per cent. of abortions free of cost to women, while the proportion paid for by the NHS in England and Wales varied between 97 per cent. and 34 per cent.
We might well see more liberal and effective laws in Scotland, but that is not the issue. Nor is the issue the competence of the Scottish parliament to take these important decisions; it is about the consequences for women—the consequence of cross-Border traffic. It is this cross-Border traffic which justifies abortion being a reserved matter. The heartache of the 6,000 women who came from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom in 1995 in order to have abortions clearly illustrates the problem. The existence of such traffic is no reason to introduce such bad practice into the differences between England and Scotland.
I reiterate: this debate is not about the content of the law or about any change in abortion law; nor is it a question of whether the law in Scotland would be more rigid or relaxed, nor indeed is it about the competence of the Scottish parliament to take serious decisions. It is about who should have legislative responsibility over a complex and sensitive issue that can affect the lives of many women. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it is about whether the Scottish parliament should be able to legislate and create a situation where the law on abortion is different on either side of the Scottish Border. However, the noble Lord did not mention the question of cross-Border traffic. I really wonder whether he is at all concerned about it and the effects on women.
For me, abortion is primarily a health issue but it is also an ethical one. That causes confusion and inequality of access. The need to overcome that in the best interests of women would be met by having a system which is common and consistent throughout the country. That can only be achieved by all women. whether from Scotland, England or Wales, having equal access to abortion. That would almost certainly not be the case

207
if this amendment were to be carried. I hope that your Lordship's House will be consistent and oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mackay has made a most powerful case in favour of both his amendments. There is only one factor that I wish to add to what he said. It is something which I hope the noble Baroness will find is an answer to some extent to the case that she has just put forward. The Scottish courts have always had a separate jurisdiction in criminal matters, not only under the Act of Union but indeed ever since the beginning of time. They have different rules on procedure, on the burden of proof and on evidence. When we have legislated in the United Kingdom parliament on criminal matters, we have always done so separately; that is to say, we have legislated on the one hand for England and Wales and, on the other, for Scotland. There have been exceptions but they have been very rare.
The latter brings me to the subject of abortion. The noble Baroness was quite correct to refer to the Abortion Act 1967. But surely this is essentially a criminal matter on which a devolved parliament should have the right to give further consideration if it thinks necessary. The noble Baroness mentioned the ethical side of the matter, as she was fully entitled to do. However, abortion is so much condemned in the broad on both sides of the Border—that is, apart from the exceptions which are statutory—that I cannot imagine a devolved parliament in Scotland relaxing the law. If the parliament finds that the law needs to be strengthened, it is only right that it should be able to do so. In any event, in the broad, we must leave criminal jurisdiction to the Scottish courts. I very much hope that my noble friend's amendment will be accepted, even by the Government.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. I should like to pick up on one very interesting point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The Government have decided that the Scottish parliament has the devolved right to deal with euthanasia. If the new parliament chooses to pass a law that brings euthanasia into being, would that not mean that that parliament would be directly in conflict with the Westminster Parliament?
I apologise if I am slightly out of court here in terms of my understanding. However, it is my clear understanding from the lengthy debates that we have had that the final power and arbitration sit within the Westminster Parliament. In devolving euthanasia, I understand that the Scottish parliament could bring about a situation which would create conflict within the United Kingdom.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, rise to make a few brief remarks. I find myself in the rather unusual position of not being able to support my noble friend Lord Mackay on his first amendment regarding abortion. However, when it comes to euthanasia, I support him
208
wholeheartedly. I feel most strongly that all these issues should be reserved matters and that we should only have one rule throughout the entire United Kingdom.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who said that there is no such thing as euthanasia. However, it is a subject which seems to be more openly and more frequently talked about these days. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised if within a very short space of time it becomes a normal fact of life. Therefore, we should not ignore it and pretend that it does not exist because it is already happening now; we just do not talk about it. Whether that be right or wrong, it is what is happening. I very much hope that we will have a UK policy on euthanasia. I sincerely hope that we can also have such a policy on abortion.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, put forward a closely argued and powerful case for these two amendments. Of course he deserves to be taken seriously in that respect. However, I believe that he is mistaken in the conclusions that he has drawn. In terms of devolution, this is not in any way a matter of distrust of what the Scottish parliament might do as regards the criminal aspects of either abortion or euthanasia when the latter becomes a legal issue. Indeed I think the whole tradition of Scottish criminal law, particularly in these matters that involve moral questions as well as criminal questions, has had a good record over many generations, and probably a more civilised one than south of the Border.
However, I think the question before us is whether the rather special issues involved in abortion and euthanasia, when that becomes a legal issue, are issues on which there should be a single United Kingdom position which would prevent the kind of distasteful and expensive traffic that may occur across the Border between Scotland and England if there were not a single United Kingdom policy. I do not speak on the abortion issue with any particular knowledge, although I have taken my own view on the matter in free votes over the years. Compared with others who have spoken so far I may have a closer and more immediate interest in a possible law on euthanasia. I am a reformer as regards euthanasia. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that as regards the special cases of both abortion and euthanasia the case for United Kingdom uniformity is overriding.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with that and I disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I believe that both these issues should be reserved. One concerns the beginning of life and the other the ending of life. They are in some ways linked. They are great spiritual and moral issues. To say that either should be devolved because it relates to the criminal law is not a justifiable argument. I think the disadvantages for Scotland of devolving the issue of abortion would enormously outweigh the advantages. I do not believe there is any need to go into what I mean by that. I think many noble Lords will understand what I mean. I believe there would be huge disadvantages for Scotland in having to decide this issue from time to time because of the nature of Scotland, its social groupings

209
and so on. I believe that that should be a reserved matter. I hope that the Government will not accept Amendment No. 219.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I did not join in this debate in Committee for the simple reason that I was in the Chair. However, I heard the entire one-and-a-half hour debate, just as I have heard many debates on this Bill when I have been in the Chair. I enter the debate now for two reasons. First, I express my surprise that we are debating now on Report exactly the same worded amendment as we debated in Committee and which was defeated in the Division Lobby by 43 votes. This second debate today—excellent though it has been—is a most unusual departure from our normal practice. I welcomed the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when he said that noble Lords on his Benches would accept the decision of the Chamber in Committee.
My second reason for entering the debate is in many ways a more substantive one, although I must confess that I find the way in which we appear to have disregarded our normal practices in some of these debates a fairly substantive matter. I believe the issue of abortion to be a UK issue and one that should be kept that way. In that sense I also believe that the issue should not be devolved in the Northern Ireland Bill either. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in moving the amendment, said—among his three arguments—that this was a moral issue. It is a moral issue and an ethical issue, but it is also a powerful emotional issue. I believe that matters of this kind should be dealt with on as wide a scale as possible and that is why I think abortion should be dealt with in the way I have described.
There is the whole question of whether abortion is a matter of health or of legality. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, with whom I usually agree on these matters, argued that Scotland has its own special judiciary. I would simply say to him that for the past 30 years since the 1967 abortion law the Scottish judiciary appears to have dealt with this issue—covering both the English system and the Scottish system—effectively.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that was because we have a United Kingdom Parliament which made that law and the Scottish courts had to observe the provisions of it. But now that we have devolution, it seemed to me to be right, on a matter on which there may be slightly different feelings north of the Border, that a new Scottish parliament could, if necessary, for example, strengthen the Act.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am at one with my noble friend Lord Sewel who said in Committee that, although criminal law as such was to be devolved in Scotland, because there was a clear law on abortion it had been decided that that could be a reserved matter. That is a powerful argument, but I also think that the argument that my noble friend Lady Gould proposed is a powerful one. There is a great deal of concern about cross-Border traffic in abortion. There is already too much distressing movement of people from one area to another in order to obtain an abortion. I would not like to see us add further to that problem.
210
Of course it is quite true—as has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that a Scottish parliament may attempt to improve the abortion law. It may keep it as it is; it may detract from it; or it may improve it. But if there were a difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other, there would be an increase in the movement I have mentioned. I believe we should attempt to decrease the traffic in abortion rather than to increase it. For all those reasons I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, we had an extensive debate in Committee and it would be quite wrong to repeat the arguments that we heard on that occasion. However, I wish to make one or two observations. They do not concern the substantive question of abortion which is not the issue before the House today. There is the question of consistency in the legislation which we pass.
In the case of the Northern Ireland Bill the Government have indicated that the issue of abortion will ultimately be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly if that is its wish. Yet the same right is not being given to the Scottish parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out in relation to this amendment, linking it with the euthanasia issue gives rise to another inconsistency; namely, that abortion is treated in one way and euthanasia in another.
The issue before the House is devolution. Is this, or is it not, a matter on which properly elected parliamentarians in Scotland should be able to decide? They are mature people. We do not know best. They should be able to make up their minds on these questions. These social, moral and ethical issues are matters upon which people reflect and which they consider in great detail.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, it leads to some inconsistencies in different legislatures. That is already true throughout Europe today. Unless we wish to move to a pan-European approach to these matters—for which I do not believe anyone would seriously argue—surely the argument for subsidiarity is better. We should move to a situation such as is outlined in this admirable amendment. It trusts Scottish people to decide on these matters for themselves. In other words, if we are serious about devolution, we should support the amendment that is before the House.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. We on these Benches are consistent in our attitudes. I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that in the past 20 years matters have moved in a sinister way. We have seen the extraordinary events in America; doctors who legally practise abortion have been shot and killed by the so-called "pro-life" lobby. That movement is growing in this country. For that reason this needs to be a United Kingdom matter, quite apart from the cross-Border traffic that might evolve.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who was once my noble friend, that I suspect his motives, in that he wants a smaller field within which to operate. The

211
noble Lord is against abortion in any form whatever. That being the case, although, all things being equal, I should prefer this matter to be in the hands of the Scottish people, in the present event I have no doubt that it should remain a United Kingdom responsibility.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we return to the issue of abortion and the linked issue of euthanasia after an extensive discussion in Committee. The Committee decisively rejected the very proposition that is before the House now.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on a point he advanced. In Committee on 27th July we discussed the linkage between abortion and euthanasia. That is not a new matter. It was discussed extensively on 27th July (Hansard, col. 1305).
I also refer noble Lords to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, at the end of that debate. He said:
"I do not believe that we would gain anything by having a revisitation of this issue at Report stage. For that reason, having had a good debate and having had Members opposite not only exercising their consciences but exercising their common sense and their individual judgment, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee".— [Official Report, 27/7/98; col. 1307.]
He did so, and the Committee decided. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is satisfied to rest on the opinion of the House as expressed in Committee. I should have hoped that we could all have done that.
I can be relatively brief. I have listened carefully to the views of all noble Lords. However, I fail to detect any new argument from those that were deployed at an earlier stage. I fully appreciate that abortion is an issue of great sensitivity and significance in Scotland and one which rouses deep emotions on both sides of the argument. But it is important to recognise at the outset of our debate today that we are not discussing the rights or wrongs of the current law on abortion. What we are considering is where legislative responsibility should lie for an issue which, while of great significance to the people of Scotland, is of similar importance to people south of the Border.
The desirability of this wider (Great Britain) perspective was recognised in the Abortion Act 1967 which, as noble Lords know, extends to Scotland. We believe that this common approach to abortion, which has endured for over 30 years now in Scotland, England and Wales, is right. In practical terms, we recognise that we have argued the case for devolution in terms of the type of argument explained by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. We have argued on the basis of which matters should be reserved and devolved—on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, terms "the big issue". I describe it as a more principled approach. Matters of health are devolved, as is much of the criminal law. However, we have recognised that there are areas of the criminal law which should be reserved, and that has been accepted by the whole House without Division. I refer to the misuse of drugs, firearms and treason. We have already decided, for good reasons, that those three areas of the criminal law should not be
212
devolved. If good reasons can be adduced as to why abortion should not be devolved, that does not in itself run contrary to the approach that we have adopted.
Having set out a principled approach, particularly in relation to devolving health issues in general, the burden of the argument rests with those of us who wish to maintain the reservation of abortion; it is for us to make the case. That case can be made briefly, but powerfully and persuasively. It is simply this. If in the future there were to be a considerable difference in the abortion law north and south of the Border and that in itself produced a significant cross-Border trade of women seeking abortion, that would be regarded as offensive by public opinion. That is the case that I make. It is the case upon which I rely. I recognise that it is not drawn from some high principle. It is drawn merely from a feeling that our fellow citizens would find it basically unacceptable that there was a cross-Border trade in women seeking abortion within Great Britain. On that basis, I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate. First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that had my amendment been out of order, I doubt whether the Clerks would have accepted it. Secondly, although we discussed euthanasia last time, the linkage is important. A little consistency is needed from the Government. Thirdly—this addresses the Minister's remark that there were no new arguments—the arguments advanced by the Government on 5th October on the Northern Ireland Bill seem to introduce a totally new dimension. I do not believe that the noble Baronesses Lady Gould and Lady Lockwood took part in that debate and said to their noble friend Lord Dubs that they disagreed with his assertion that the abortion law should follow the criminal law, which is the Government's clearly stated position, on the record. All I ask for is consistency. That position should apply to Scotland, as well.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the constitutional situation in Northern Ireland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, devolution throughout all parts of the United Kingdom is on exactly the same principle. The Government have decided not to devolve the criminal law to Northern Ireland currently but have made it clear that, when they do devolve it, the abortion law will go with it. The arguments with regard to Northern Ireland should be the same for Scotland and vice versa.
My noble friend Lord Renton made the point that Scots law has a long tradition of being different from English law. The Scottish parliament is being set up to legislate on a wide variety of matters. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that she believed in devolution, it did not sound like it. This very large Bill, which we have now been discussing in Committee and on Report for 14 days, contains a vast number of important issues which we Scots shall decide for ourselves in Edinburgh. I believe that abortion should be one of them.

213
If noble Lords will not support me on the first amendment, I look forward to their supporting me on the second amendment. The noble Viscount said that euthanasia is not a matter on which there are currently laws. In fact, it is illegal and so serious laws apply to it. I think the noble Viscount meant that there were not laws which allowed for euthanasia in certain circumstances. While that may be the case, there is a great deal of discussion on the subject. In the countries of some of our European friends laws already exist which allow for euthanasia in very limited circumstances. There are vigorous lobbies both for and against in this country—by which I mean both England and Scotland. It is very possible that in the next few years legislatures will have to address these issues. If the House does not think that abortion can be trusted to the Scottish parliament, I suggest that nor can euthanasia. I therefore invite the opinion of the House on the first amendment and, dependent on the result, I shall invite the opinion of the House on the second amendment.
7.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 219) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Luke, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Biddulph, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Buscombe, B.

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Patten, L.

Dundee, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Forbes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sempill, L.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kingsland, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Waddington, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Wynford, L.

214

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Addington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ahmed, L

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alli, L.

Kintore, E.

Amos, B.

Levy, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Bach, L.

Lockwood, B.

Balfour, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Barnett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berners, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Borrie, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlisle, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monkswell, L.

Chandos, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Christopher, L.

Montrose, D.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Newby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Northfield, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Orme, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Dixon, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rowallan, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Flather, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Geraint, L.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Goodhart, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Goudie, B.

Stair, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strange, B.

Grey, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardie, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

Haskel, L.

Thurso, V.

Hayman, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Warner, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 84, line 33, at end insert—

SECTION 6—EUTHANASIA ETC.
Reservation
Euthanasia.
The approval, refusal of approval, or withholding of medical treatment and health care.
The granting or withholding of consent to medical treatment and healthcare on behalf of patients who are incapable of making their own decisions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the sake of consistency and to allow noble Lords to be consistent, I shall seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
7.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 220) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Berners, B.

Marlesford, L.

Biddulph, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blatch, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chesham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Patten, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Rowallan, L.

Forbes, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sharples, B.

Home, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Strange, B.

Iveagh, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vivian, L.

Luke, L.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Acton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Addington, L.

Astor, V.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Balfour, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Blackstone, B.

216

Blease, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Christopher, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Maddock, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craigavon, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone,L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northfield, L.

Dholakia, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Parry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Razzall, L.

Flather, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Grey, E.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hacking, L.

Stair, E.

Hardie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thornton, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Thurso, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hoyle, L.

Uddin, B.

Hughes, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Warner, L.

Hylton, L.

Whitty, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 9.1 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Service Helplines
8.1 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their long-term policy towards helplines in the field of health services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, helplines have become synonymous with the upwardly mobile society of today. The better educated we become and the better health we enjoy, the more help we require from anonymous people at the end of a phone. All sections of our modern society—old and young, rich and poor—have problems, and we all know someone with more problems than ourselves. There has been a proliferation of new helplines to deal with every problem imaginable. Some are government led and funded; others are privately run and financed by charities. But all provide a vital service for many, many people too frightened, concerned or embarrassed to confront someone on a face to face basis.
The Department of Health runs 16 helplines, the best known of which are Childline, drinkline, aidsline and drugsline, but, interestingly, does not provide any service for the many people who want access to alternative medicines. The Government have also started up NHS Direct, a 24-hour advice line staffed by nurses and intended to cover the entire country by the millennium. Fourteen million pounds was spent on the pilot schemes in Milton Keynes, Preston and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This year, £35 million is being put into the second phase covering 13 new areas and a further 19 million people. This month it has been announced that a single telephone line service is being installed at a cost of £4 million to put patients in touch with the full range of NHS services.
But is all this taxpayers' money being well spent? According to the Health Service Journal on 30th July this year,
"It is unclear how the new service fits in with existing primary care and information services offering telephone advice".
It seems that there were only 4,000 calls to the three pilots in 10 weeks. That is a very low uptake, being only 25 to 60 calls a day. Furthermore, when people were asked about the service in the pilot areas they said that they would use it for the following reasons: to get medical advice on minor ailments; to get medical advice if the GP was not present; to get advice as to whether they should go to accident and emergency, or the surgery; to get advice on self-help groups; to get information on patients' rights; or to get a second opinion. But they also said that they did not want the service if it took away from existing health services and that they would prefer to see a doctor in the first place. So there was not an enormous amount of enthusiasm from the public in these pilot areas, except for the secondary matters of health.
So could it be that the speed of the planned growth of NHS Direct suggests that the fulfilment of political promises precedes rigorous evaluation; or is it that the research is aimed at clarifying not whether NHS Direct develops but how? If this service is to develop, it must be at a very fast level for both the service itself and its
218
nurses, both of whom will be on a steep learning curve. First, they must ensure that the service is safe and effective, especially in regard to the best processes to be used regarding which decision support software works best. Secondly, they must ensure that the service develops national standards rather than fragmented regional ones. Thirdly, they must ensure that the service is an integral part of the NHS itself. Fourthly, they must ensure that the service gives help to all. It must be wary of providing a service to those who do not need it because it is using such high technology. Fifthly, it must develop into more than just a helpline. It must become a forerunner for the future NHS whereby the system provides convenient and reliable interactive gateways to health and other welfare services such as managing chronic diseases, dispensing prescriptions and booking hospital appointments.
But—and this is the core question I am asking in this debate tonight—can and should this service be developed at the expense of, or separately to, the existing specialised helpline services already run privately by charities at great expense, with volunteers of enormous skill and specialised knowledge; or should it be integrated with them to provide a new dynamic package of care for those who need it?
I must declare an interest as a director of Sane, the mental health charity. I must also say how pleased we are to have a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, whose contribution I much look forward to hearing; and I should like to say how delighted I am that five other noble Lords will be expressing their views on this vital subject.
There are approximately 1,000 existing helplines in the United Kingdom. In the field of health there are 108 dealing with general health matters, 53 with mental health problems, 140 with disabilities and 60 with sexual problems. I wish to concentrate on two of these helplines—Saneline and the Samaritans. Both work very well together and both provide a 365 day service, taking nearly 5 million calls a year between them. But both are being undercut by government funding going to new charities.
Saneline is not a referral service. It is committed to providing accurate and up-to-date information on options of care available in their own area. Callers who ring are stayed with throughout the time needed for the necessary help and support to be provided. Discipline is ensured by helpers, who get paid expenses only, each of whom receives 40 hours of training before starting work—a longer time than a good many social workers receive in the mental health field. Callers are put into a network of care and calls are followed up by a visit and/or a call back the following day. There are an average of 70,000 people phoning each year, averaging 800 hours a month of one-to-one contact. It costs Sane £900,000 a year to run. That is only three times what we are told the initial government investment in CALM—the Campaign Against Living Miserably—cost for its three month pilot scheme, which was restricted to Manchester and to 15 to 25 year-old men. As Sane already provides a specialised service for this group of people, I am forced to ask which organisation provides the better service and the better value.
I ask the Minister to tell the House how she envisages that the nurses who are running NHS Direct will have the necessary knowledge to advise in anything other than generalised terms. It is obvious to me, and it should be obvious to this Government, that specialised nurses would be needed; and as there is a shortage of them already, where are they to come from? We certainly cannot afford to take them away from the frontline in the hospitals.
The latest government statement suggested that 15,000 nurses would be required to help run their current planned helplines, and this despite the current recruitment and retention crisis. So how can NHS Direct be serviced? If you are not providing specialisation, what happens if incorrect information is given? How many ordinary nurses know that 16 Lithium are fatal or that seven Paracetamol can kill; what drugs react badly with other drugs; and what are the side-effects of the new drugs coming on to the market? They are coming on all the time. They cannot, but Saneline's information data base of 13,000 records, which is continually updated, has all the information at the touch of a button for the carer, the doctor and the caller.
So why are CALM and NHS Direct created when the system to help these targeted people is already in place with a proven track record? This is duplication and may be a misuse of funds from other mental health services and the NHS generally. So I must ask whether the Government intend to audit the objectives, standards, outcomes and value for money given by both CALM and NHS Direct.
I turn to the Samaritans, which has been in existence since 1953. With 204 branches and 20,500 volunteers, it is the biggest of all helplines. It receives 4.5 million calls a year, of which 67 per cent. are from people contemplating suicide, and spends 3.3 million hours on the phone. It costs more than £1 million each year to run. Of all those calls, nearly 27,000 come from prisoners. They help to stop many suicides each year. The Government want them to continue to do that and yet they will not give them any help with funding the splendid work that they do. Recruitment is difficult. Now that the Government are intent on poaching volunteers and staff to the new lines that they are promoting and duplicating it will become harder.
I ask the Minister to answer the following questions. First, what are the Government's intentions with regard to the provision of helpline services for health-related matters and in particular the provision of emotional support for those in crisis taking into account the existing services and back-ups provided by the existing charities? Secondly, why is it no longer appropriate to provide financial assistance from central funds and Section 64 funding in particular in support of core costs for large existing and established voluntary organisations such as the Samaritans and SANE when at the same time the Government expect such organisations to play an active role in reducing suicides and improve the nation's mental health? Thirdly, are the Government prepared to acknowledge and use the significant resource that is available from the voluntary section to help achieve an improvement in the nation's
220
health, mental and physical, and well being? Fourthly, are the Government aware of the need for a carefully co-ordinated strategy to address the incidence of suicide which in 1997 accounted for 5,712 deaths in Great Britain and untold distress for those who have been bereaved in this way? Fifthly, do the Government intend to keep on seeking new providers through advertising in obscure journals such as the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities and under the auspices of the Central Office of Information without contacting existing experts in these fields in order to give them a chance to bid for the franchise that they offer? Sixthly, can the privately financed charities have a guarantee that it is worth their while continuing to exist and to raise finances or do the Government intend to take over their functions? It is vital that those questions are answered in order that the existing charities can forward plan and budget. If the volunteers of the Samaritans and SANE were paid half the minimum wage that the Government have introduced, which would put them well below the poverty line, the cost to the nation would be over £14 million a year.
I earnestly request the Minister to work together with the established charities to provide for the health of our nation in a concerted and co-operative way but not in the confrontational and fragmented way that many of the charities feel is happening at the present time. I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply with great interest.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, there are many traditions in this House. One of them is to feel nervous when making a maiden speech. I am not always a true believer in tradition, but I can confirm that this is a tradition that I am already following. Indeed, I now better understand that old story of the young boy who was taken by his father to an art gallery where they stopped in front of a large picture of "Daniel in the Lion's Den". And the little boy said, "Daddy, why is Daniel smiling?" and his father replied, "Well, you see, he doesn't have to speak during the dinner hour".
I take this opportunity to say how grateful I am to all of your Lordships for making me feel so welcome and to express my thanks to the staff of the House for being so helpful and supportive. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for tabling his very interesting Question, thereby giving me the opportunity to intervene this evening.
I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a non-executive director of the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust and the LAS has been chosen to organise one of the second-wave NHS direct pilots. I should also record that I was until last month director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and for a time was a trustee of the Help for Health Trust which runs some of the existing telephone health information services.
It is a truism that information is power. I hope it will not be taken in the wrong way by those of your Lordships who are or have been medical practitioners when I say that even now too many patients feel

221
patronised by the professionals they encounter in the health service. However, whether those professionals like it or not patients are becoming empowered. The information revolution is going on around them. Patients are becoming better informed. They have access to more information and more sources of information. Some people already go into the consulting room having self-diagnosed themselves and already considered treatment options. They arrive in the presence of the doctor ready to negotiate their treatment—and, what is more, are capable of doing so. This will becoming increasingly common.
Medicine is not some mediaeval alchemy whose truths are jealously guarded by the lucky few inducted into its mysteries; nor even is it high science whose intricacies can be grasped only by a tiny minority. Much of the aura of medicine—hence much of the inequality between doctor and patient—is created by a differential access to information. We will see a gradual change in the role of the professional. When we go to see our doctor in the future we will not be consulting her or him as the provider of information about our condition, but increasingly our doctor will be the person who explains and interprets that information. That will change quite dramatically the balance of power between provider and user of services. Yet that is the direction in which the NHS must go, with the individual service user being an equal partner in determining his own care. That is why developments such as NHS Direct are so important. Not only is the service available whenever patients want it—24 hours a day and 365 days a year—but I also believe that it will help to reduce the burden on over-stretched GPs, hospital casualty departments and ambulance services. Patients will be able to get direct advice quickly and easily.
My understanding is that more than three-quarters of those who have rung the pilot NHS Direct lines have been advised to act differently from their pre-call intention. In many cases this has meant that a GP has not had to be called out, an emergency ambulance summoned, or time taken up in a busy accident and emergency department. There have also been cases—the converse, if you like—where it has been necessary to advise people to take more urgent action than would otherwise have been their intention. That is about potentially saving lives.
As I have no doubt already tried the patience of your Lordships with the length of this speech, I conclude with four questions that I hope the Minister can address later. First, what consideration is being given to meeting the needs of those with language difficulties or those for whom English is not their first language? Secondly, is it the intention that NHS Direct will in time supersede the existing telephone health information services—I do not mean simply those to which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, referred—or will they continue and operate in parallel? I believe that there would be benefits for patients if that happened. Thirdly, is it envisaged that patients and patients' representatives will be involved in evaluating the pilots and advising on the development of the service? Finally, as NHS Direct becomes a national
222
service in the year 2000, what plans are there for publicising the service and will there be a single phone number for the country as a whole?
8.17 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on his excellent and thoughtful speech. His record in public service is second to none and we hope that in your Lordships' House he will have many more opportunities to make a contribution. I am well aware of his involvement in race relations. I am delighted that he identified one of these subjects in his speech. He was a member of the Home Secretary's Race Relations Advisory Committee. I am also involved in the field of mental health and am aware of his work in that sphere. I hope that he will be interested in what I have to say about the issues relating to race and the helplines. I give one word of warning to the noble Lord. I hope that he does not support his local team, Tottenham Hotspur. It is not a team that I support. If he does so, I shall be very unkind to him on future occasions.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for this important debate. Some time ago the noble Lord and I discussed this subject and we agreed on the need for a clear strategy on helplines. In a free and democratic society information plays a very important part and yet access to information is bound to be fairly limited. We are living proof of a society where at the touch of a few buttons on a computer we have access to information that would not have been possible a few years ago.
But there is a downside to the availability of information when it concerns the most intimate or personal details of individuals. Service providers are stretched to the limit and time constraints allow only limited access to those on whom we rely for such information. Often voluntary organisations are left to pick up the pieces because of limitations on service providers in the statutory sector. In almost all areas of public life the Government's strategy often relies upon the voluntary services to fill gaps left by the statutory agencies. No one can dispute that large numbers of voluntary organisations, in this case in the field of health, provide guidance and support by way of helplines. This involves the adequate training of volunteers and staff but also the production of printed information which is helpful to callers.
I have had a number of discussions with voluntary agencies working in the mental health field. It is all very well to equip organisations to start up a service by providing core grants. Saneline deals with a quarter of a million calls made by 70,000 people. The resource implications must be enormous, but there is a bottom line to such funding organisations receiving core grants, having established services, are now expected to be self-funding.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have more to say later on, but let me stress that the need for helpline services in the field of health is relevant to all sections of the community.
Britain is a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. The ethnic minority population forms about 5 per cent. of our total population. People from various parts of the

223
world have made this country their homeland. Their welfare needs and language differ from the indigenous population. More importantly they have shared needs, special needs and separate needs in the field of health. Some of the health issues affect one or the other groups. Their comparatively short stay in this society does not lead them to use services with which they are not familiar. We need to establish that helplines cater adequately for their needs by providing services that are easily accessible and making sure that provision is made to use and train volunteers from these communities who are able to communicate with them.
Perhaps I may give an example. It is not directly relevant to the helpline in the health services but to racial attacks and racial incidents, of which there are an estimated 130,000 a year. Police forces were concerned about the low level of reporting. In a number of areas helplines were set up and manned by people with different languages. Suddenly, the level of reporting rose because people had confidence in being able to communicate in their own languages. The same applies in health services.
I believe that the effective provision of helpline services should attempt to meet the needs of our various communities by providing help, advice and literature in the language they understand. More importantly, it should cater for the needs of refugees, who are often the victims of serious human rights abuses and are desperately seeking help and advice relating to their health problems.
The gist of my case is that helplines can provide a crucial service to people with special needs, and in particular those who are under stress. Helplines could provide information not only to individuals with health needs but also to friends and relatives. Much more use should be made of ethnic press, radio and television programmes so that services are well advertised and easy to access.
What we require is a clear government strategy which provides a service of the necessary quality and which addresses the needs of all sections of our community. There ought to be adequate funding which will assist not only the survival but also the growth of voluntary helplines which are important for success in this field. There ought not to be duplication of services which are already provided and which afford a high standard of public satisfaction. Scarce resources ought not to be wasted.
Helplines, as demonstrated in other parts of the world, are a new and exciting service. We ought to build on the strength of existing organisations which have a proven track record in this field.
8.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, my diocese covers a varied area of the West Midlands with a population of more than 2.5 million. It includes, for example, the Wolverhampton and Black Country together with the Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme conurbations. It also includes county towns such as Stafford and Shrewsbury, together
224
with the many farming communities stretching from the Peak District in north Staffordshire to places such as Oswestry on the Welsh border. Some are remote communities.
I believe that, in principle, those who are aware of the helplines in the field of health services are strongly in favour of the kind of evidence which, for instance, the Health Minister, Mr. Milburn, shared with members of GP co-operatives at the conference in Warwick last month. It was evidence which the BMA also welcomed, though rightly insisting that it should be carefully evaluated; evidence, too, which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, the Health Service Journal confirmed as broadly favourable. For example, at Warwick the Minister was able to tell us—and here I wish to be a little more positive about the pilot schemes and the evidence—that in the first three months of helpline pilot schemes 15,000 calls were made to the three NHS Direct pilot centres. Even more importantly, following the advice from trained nurses over the helplines, 30 per cent. of the callers were able to look after themselves at home rather than having to attend a GP's surgery or local casualty department. Surely that fact means a saving of NHS money and time and, as the previous speaker mentioned, avoids unnecessary stress on hard-pressed GPs.
I understand that in 200 cases callers needed emergency help, even though they were unaware of that when they first picked up the helpline, a point to which both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred. At Warwick the Minister rightly claimed that a health service helpline can be a life saver. I also note that the helpline call centre equipment not only provides the means for patients and nurses or a doctor to talk to each other, but also allows for clinical decision support software to be used by the nurses as an aid in assessing and recording patients' symptoms in line with previous calls.
Other good considerations support the helplines trend in the health services. For example, primary care is available only at three access points; our GP, the casualty department of a local hospital or by dialling 999 for an ambulance. But, alas, as many of us know, an appointment with our GP may take a week or 10 days to arrange. A visit to a casualty department often involves a very long wait, as I have found. And many people do not want to call an ambulance on 999.
Sometimes the doctors tell us that we are not as seriously ill as we supposed. Talking through symptoms over a helpline can help us to realise that there is no immediate need for medical attention. Reassurance may be all that is required.
Furthermore, many families no longer live in close proximity and family advice is often no longer available. In many of the rural areas of my diocese transport services are few and far between. As I said, many people are unwilling to telephone for ambulances. Only last weekend I was speaking to a middle aged lady who cared for a very aged mother. The mother started an alarmingly bad nosebleed at three o'clock in the morning. They did not want to call an ambulance; they needed a health service helpline with the wise advice of a trained doctor or nurse.

225
As we know, owing to increasing workloads, many GPs are frequently unavailable at weekends. We also hear of the alarming shortage of medical students. In fact, many medical practices are already offering their own health helplines in order to reduce the mounting workload.
A member of my own family has been suffering from Alzheimer's disease for the past 12 years. Because of the excellent work of our GPs, district nurses and care assistants, we are able to look after her at home. But not long ago she developed a chest infection which in turn triggered a severe convulsion. The convulsion caused a perforation of her bowel, which led to severe breathing difficulties which I did not understand. As a GP was not available on that occasion, I was obliged to wait five hours for a deputy doctor who arrived just before midnight. I was reluctant to ring for an ambulance as I did not know how serious her condition was. After another five-hour wait she was admitted at 6 a.m. the next day, some 12 or so hours wait in total. I believe that an NHS helpline with a trained nurse or doctor would have helped us greatly.
A further encouraging factor, which we have already heard from noble Lords is the proven value of the voluntary sector. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: As chairman of SANE, I naturally wish to give added strength to the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Rowallan who so splendidly introduced this debate.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that, yes, a helpline for the National Health Service is a good idea, but we are talking about helplines for the mentally ill. He was talking of wider issues. I know that he mentioned Alzheimer's disease, but nose bleeds are a different problem.
My connections with charities date from when I succeeded my mother as president of the NSPCC on the Isle of Wight. At that time, in the late 1970s, I wondered why we still needed charities to look after children. Were not the social workers, who had been established some 30 years before, going to do that? The answer was, "No, they cannot do it by themselves". One of the great features of the NSPCC which I discovered before I even touched on mental health is that it was able to be experimental, try new methods and help children ab initio without the public feeling that by going to it they were going to "auntie government". There is a reluctance by people to put their problems in the hands of government officials of whatever sort. That has nothing to do with party politics. People turn more readily to organisations such as the NSPCC than to social workers.
It is also a fact that, excellent though many social workers are, they are not quite so free to give treatment and to refer cases up the line quickly if they want to deviate from the norm. I discovered that that splendid charity, which had been in existence then for nearly 100 years and which is now much older than that, had a job to do in filling a gap. It still has that job to do and does it very well.
226
I was asked to look after the interests in this House of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. I readily backed that because it was a charity that had been created from the ground up. It had not been imposed by worthy people from above. I saw the possibilities of that charity because it could deal with matters flexibly. The Department of Health, in the early 1980s, was not really stuck into the problems of the mentally ill in the way that it had been involved with the mentally handicapped. It was doing its best but the mentally ill were a problem. People were trying to reduce the number of hospital beds because they had been told that would be a good idea. The whole matter seemed to me to be difficult.
I turn to SANE, an association of which I became chairman some 12 years ago. SANE started its Saneline because it received a lot of publicity. Its superb chief executive, Marjory Wallace, is a great publicist, apart from being a great fundraiser and a highly intelligent person who can pick up matters quickly when the need arises. We discovered that people ringing our ordinary telephone number wanted help, so we formed the helpline. Then we discovered that they needed more information than that with which we could easily put them in touch, so we developed a database. That database is unique in its form. I think that my noble friend Lord Rowallan touched on that. If he did not, I expect that the Minister knows enough about this matter to know that it is a uniquely well-balanced database manned by volunteers. Another aspect of helplines run by charities is that they are run, as far as possible, by volunteers on a day-to-day basis, with a few experts available for back-up where needed. That is the basis upon which the Samaritans was founded. That is a terribly good aspect of helplines.
We have a particularly good helpline which needs to be developed, not squashed. I believe that we should be encouraged to develop it more by having some of the extra money that I heard on television this evening is to be given to the Department of Health by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That could be a good investment. As the right reverend Prelate indicated, if our helpline were given the support it needs, the health service could be spared trouble and expense.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the initiation of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the valuable contribution of other noble Lords. In particular, I welcome what I thought was a shrewd contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
My involvement with helplines stems from CancerBACUP, founded by my late wife, Dr. Vicky Clement-Jones. She was a bright, young 32 year old medical registrar and endocrinologist at Barts Hospital who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1982. During the five remaining years of her life, she devoted herself to setting up CancerBACUP and its telephone Cancer Information Service. In its first 10 years of existence from 1985, when CancerBACUP was officially launched, it dealt with a quarter of a million telephone inquiries. It now deals with something like 45,000 inquiries a year and sends out some quarter of a million

227
booklets. Yet, with 6,000 new diagnoses each week, if one other carer is included, it is reaching less than 10 per cent. of people who could benefit. CancerBACUP would certainly like to do much more to meet the need.
Vicky's motto was always, "Information is the antidote to fear". As a result, both CancerBACUP and I welcome the announcement of NHS Direct in last year's White Paper. In principle, I welcome the Government's commitment to roll out NHS Direct across the country and their resource commitment of something like £100 million annually. I also welcome the statements in Information for Health, the new NHS information strategy, that NHS Direct could be the stepping stone to a much wider future of telemedicine and telecare.
It is clear, however, that there are a number of concerns voiced by professionals and the voluntary sector in relation to NHS Direct which need to be allayed. Many of them have been expressed by noble Lords. Above all, there is the question of the relationship between NHS Direct and the specialist voluntary sector helplines. It is vital that NHS Direct works alongside existing voluntary sector helplines. It needs to make sure that optimum cross-referral to specialist services, whether for mental health problems, cancer or asthma, takes place, that duplication is avoided and that genuine co-working takes place. Only if NHS Direct sees its role as that of a gateway, not necessarily as a final point of destination, will the right relationship be built. NHS Direct must maximise the value of existing quality helpline resources in the voluntary sector.
If NHS Direct is used as a gateway, particularly if common telecommunications are used, the quality of service, both for NHS Direct and the voluntary sector, will be vital. They must operate within the same quality framework.
There are some 1,000 voluntary helplines across the UK but their quality differs widely. With the advent of NHS Direct, some kind of kite-marking or accreditation is needed which could follow the guidelines of good practice in telephone work drawn up by the Telephone Helplines Association. In that regard, as many noble Lords will know, the issue of confidentiality is absolutely vital.
Those helplines which are of sufficient quality, but only if they are, should be able to enter into service-level agreements with NHS Direct to provide specialist information, support and advice on referral. I would go further. For example, could not the Department of Health pilot arrangements between NHS Direct and suitable helplines over the next couple of years?
There are many other issues apart from those on which there is only time to touch briefly. Current funding of non-NHS helplines looks somewhat random. The information which the Department of Health has given me recently shows that that appears to be the case. What were the criteria for support of those helplines? I understand that the interim reports on the first pilots will be published by the Department of Health this
228
December. But do we yet know enough about NHS Direct's effect on primary care services? Will it build on the extremely successful Wiltshire trial and the University of Southampton research? Why is the NHS not already developing draft national guidelines or protocols? At present, that will happen only at the beginning of the year 2000. Should not the second phase pilots be working next year, with draft national guidelines?
Will the £100 million pledge cover all the costs of those helplines of NHS Direct or will local trusts be expected to cover some of the costs? What are the recruitment implications? Those were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. There are estimates, which he mentioned, that another 15,000 nurses will be needed to provide a full national service for NHS Direct. In the face of a major recruitment crisis, with 8,000 nursing vacancies, will sufficient nurses be available to staff the service?
In the light of all the above, is the December 2000 deadline for national roll-out realistic? If those issues are resolved in time, I should be extremely happy to make sure that in due course NHS Direct becomes the third best-known telephone number in the country; that is, after people's home telephone numbers and 999. But the last thing any of us wants is for the service to fail because of over-hasty implementation and a lack of clear vision as to where it fits in with the voluntary sector.
8.43 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rowallan deserves our thanks for presenting us with an opportunity to debate a subject which is both topical and of considerable interest to many in the medical world and outside. He covered a great deal of ground in his speech but I should like to underline and pursue one of the things which he touched on; namely, the development of NHS Direct.
NHS Direct was announced in last year's White Paper—The New NHS. The first wave of pilots in Milton Keynes, Northumbria and Preston was launched in late March 1998. It is a nurse-led scheme designed to act as a triage and information helpline for anyone wanting medical advice who lives within the scheme's designated area.
There is no doubt that such a scheme offers tremendous potential for fast-tracking patients to the advice or service which they need and for relieving the burden on GPs' surgeries. I welcome the fact that NHS Direct is nurse-led. As the Minister will know, the RCN has taken part in a three-year study with the University of Southampton to determine the safety and effectiveness of a nurse-led, out-of-hours telephone service. The results of that study, which were most encouraging, were published in the British Medical Journal on 17th October.
Emerging from that will be guidance on good practice for nurse telephone consultations and I am advised by the RCN that that guidance will be relevant to both NHS and privately operated services, including specialist health advice lines. The wish and aim of the RCN is to

229
see a common standard applied both within the NHS and the independent sector to ensure that callers receive the right care in the right place at the right time.
Those developments are both welcome and timely. The RCN and Southampton University are to be congratulated on a useful and very satisfactory study. However, the leader of the research team stressed a key point; that to repeat the results achieved, the service must be planned and managed properly using experienced and specially trained nurses. That is where I return to NHS Direct. Thirteen second-wave pilots for NHS Direct have already been designated and we now understand that a third wave, bringing the national coverage to 60 per cent., will go live in February 2000.
That begs a very large question: what analysis and evaluation have been carried out on the three initial pilots to validate and inform the setting up of the second and third waves? It appears that the Department of Health has chosen not to wait for the results of the first three pilots before rolling out the scheme on a very much wider scale. On what basis has that been done? At the very least, we need to have a clear picture of the number of patients directed to their GP or to an A&E department and data on outcomes. To the extent that interrogation through NHS Direct results in an increase in the number of patients sent to GPs and A&E units, we need to know how appropriate those referrals turn out to be. If it emerges that most patients are ill and in need of attention, that is well and good. But if what is happening is simply that a greater number of worried well people are filling up surgeries and delaying examination of urgent and ill patients in hospital casualty departments, then very serious questions will need to be asked. We simply do not know.
I ask the Minister what measures of evaluation are being used by the Government to assess the cost-effectiveness of NHS Direct? What are the key tests for its success or failure? The Minister of State, Mr. Milburn, was quoted recently as claiming that NHS Direct is proving to be a lifesaver, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned. The apparent basis for that statement was that 220 callers to the service had been recommended to seek an ambulance even though the callers themselves had not recognised the urgency of their inquiries. But Mr. Milburn does not seem to have considered that either patients may be overplaying their symptoms on the telephone or the nurses may be adopting an extremely cautious approach. What matters for evaluation purposes is not whether the ambulance was called, but whether it was justified when the patient arrived at hospital.
GPs are worried that NHS Direct, far from reducing the workload in surgeries, may be increasing it unnecessarily. I am aware that primary care co-operatives in Preston and Milton Keynes have expressed their worries about a rise in inappropriate out-of-hours referrals and have voiced their impression that the nurses manning the helplines are working with flawed protocols which are being followed rigidly, with the result that there is no separation of the urgent cases from the non-urgent. I ask the Minister whether those worries are being taken seriously by her department and whether, in particular, the health authorities' steering
230
committees charged with rolling out the scheme across the country will be encouraged to take the opinions of local GPs fully into account as they proceed.
As the RCN has emphasised, the key to success is thorough and appropriate nurse training. I should be grateful for any information which the Minister can give me on the training that nurses are receiving.
There is also another dimension; that is, the long-term effect of NHS Direct on GP co-operatives. A few weeks ago, the Government made the welcome announcement of an increase in funding for the out-of-hours development fund in England. As the Minister will be aware, there are increasing calls on that fund from a growing number of GP co-operatives. It is highly valued. Yet she will know also that fears persist among GPs that that money may be diverted to fund the expansion of NHS Direct. Can she offer any reassurance on that point?
I believe that NHS Direct and GP out-of-hours co-operatives should be regarded as complementary services. If triage nurses were linked directly with doctors available to provide emergency advice and visits, that would indeed make for a seamless and fast-track service. But that is not how NHS Direct is being set up. By and large, it operates independently of co-operatives. I repeat, I believe NHS Direct to be a service with great potential if handled properly, but it appears to have been rushed and, so far at least, it seems to be fuelling unnecessary demands rather than managing existing demand better. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some reassurance.
8.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for initiating tonight's short debate which, although it has been short, has been of high quality. It is certainly proving a challenge in terms of responding in 12 minutes to all the issues that have been raised. I shall do my best to answer most of the questions, but perhaps I may write to noble Lords on those questions that I am forced to leave out because of shortage of time.
We also should be grateful to the noble Lord for eliciting a very thoughtful and well-judged maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. He comes to this House with the strongest of track records, both in local government and in the health service. His contribution tonight made us aware why he has that track record. He made us all look forward to the ongoing contribution he can make to the proceedings of this House.
Many issues have been raised tonight about the general strategy regarding helplines. There has been some very specific focusing, particularly in the area of helplines in the voluntary sector and those dealing particularly with mental health services.
As a Government we are committed to providing health services that are fast, convenient and responsive. We recognise the crucial role which good information and advice have to play in helping patients and their carers to manage successfully the consequences of

231
illness as well as to ensure more appropriate and effective use of services and to help reduce inappropriate demands on the NHS.
Information can help to bridge the gap between professional knowledge and patient anxiety. I take on board the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we must have some quality assurance about the information provided. I believe that he will be reassured by the focus on the new information strategy for the NHS; that is, the importance of making sure that quality assurance in relation to health and illness is maintained.
The telephone has a particularly crucial role to play in helping to improve our access information. It is far from being a new medium. However, it has reached the stage in the UK where it is virtually a universal medium and where most of us are increasingly familiar with using the telephone to access information and services on a variety of issues. However, I take note of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we have to make sure that we relate to the whole population and that we provide telephone services that are accessible, particularly to newcomers who do not have the same kind of experience with telephone information services—for example, refugees. There has to be some sensitivity to those issues and to issues affecting ethnic groups.
I was at the Royal College of Nursing yesterday at the Mary Secole Awards. It was interesting to hear a past award winner talk about her project with patients in Sickle Cell Crisis. She referred to the number of calls she had received which had nothing to do with Sickle Cell Crisis. About 25 per cent. related to general health issues. Perhaps I should not mention the 2 per cent. of calls that were from people asking for their shopping to be done. I can identify with that as well.
As has been pointed out in the debate tonight, a wide range of telephone helplines operate in the health field and do an excellent job providing access to information, advice and reassurance. The Department of Health supports wholly or in part over 20 telephone helplines, which cover a wide range of health issues. High profile services have been mentioned such as Childline, national AIDS and Drugs Helplines. We also provide support for the National Asthma Helpline and Quitline, offering confidential and practical help on giving up smoking. We know also of the very fine work that is done by organisations like Cancer BACUP and of course, because of the particular commitments of the noble Lords, Lord Rowallan and Lord Mottistone, the service offered by Saneline. The Government very much welcome the valuable work done by organisations such as SANE and the Samaritans in providing telephone support and advice to people with mental health problems. They do an excellent job and help a great many people, often in very difficult circumstances. I am very happy to pay tribute to that work today. Saneline meets a clearly established need which the Department of Health has recognised by providing funding of around £830,000 over the past five years, including £225,000 of direct help for Saneline. This year we are also contributing over £29,000 for the London Helpline for
232
management and volunteer training. Clearly, it is a valued service which we would all like to see continue and flourish.
Equally, we recognise the important role of the Samaritans, particularly at times of personal crisis or when people may be at risk of suicide. In their Healthier Nation Green Paper the Government pledged to commit themselves to improve the health of the nation and to address the incidence of suicide. We are proposing a target to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least one-sixth by the year 2010. If that is met, nearly 800 lives will be saved.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, asked whether we had the strategy in place. Focusing on high-risk groups is part of the Government action to reduce the overall suicide rate. Because of concern over suicide in certain high-risk occupational groups, particularly among farmers, the department has commissioned research into suicide and to self-harm in those groups in particular.
Noble Lords will have seen how much of tonight's debate has focused on the issue of NHS Direct, a new service which has been introduced, and its interaction with established and specialist services. I recognise the concerns which exist as regards the specialist services and the roll-out of the service and its evaluation. That has been mentioned by speakers on both Front Benches. I was particularly grateful for the welcome given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield to the service and his acknowledgement of the number of people and variety of circumstances that, by its generalist nature, NHS Direct is able to help.
We look to NHS Direct not only to use the technology to respond positively to the needs of patients, but to enable the public to make better use of NHS services. I am not as gloomy as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the possibilities of and potential for misuse. I believe that the potential for focusing people in the right places is enormous. If people have reassurance that they do not need to be in the A&E department at all, it means that those awaiting admission will have to wait a lot less than five hours. The NHS professionals can then concentrate their efforts where they are needed.
By next year we shall have launched a second wave of pilot areas and extended coverage to 20 million people, or more than 40 per cent. of the population. The second wave will include a number of major population areas, including the whole of Greater Manchester, most of the West Midlands conurbation and most of the West Country. In those pilot schemes we shall have to address the issues of the interface, particularly with local services directed at minority ethnic communities.
As regards the new pilot schemes which have been announced, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howe, that GP co-ops are involved in six of the 13 second-wave areas. In one case in west London they are providing a central call centre for the service. In others they are part of the hub-and-spoke model, with some out-station nurse triage in the GP co-ops, which are networked into a central call centre.
So we are looking very carefully at the possibilities of the interface between GP services and those offered by NHS Direct. We have to be careful that providing

233
a service in one place does not create greater demand elsewhere. I also have to evaluate carefully what is being done. The concept of a national network helpline is new and the first-wave pilot sites are being independently evaluated by the medical research unit at Sheffield University to explore how they operate, the benefits they bring, their costs, what effects they have on NHS services and the lessons that may be learnt for NHS Direct. We are taking a developmental approach, making sure that we learn the lessons and evaluate properly but at the same time do not lose the impetus of rolling out the programme which is necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about accessibility for those with language difficulties and for whom English is not their first language. We are committed to ensuring that it is accessible for people with special communication needs. We want to see how the extensive work we need to undertake can best be organised within a national service.
We want to look too at the evaluation to make sure that patients and their representatives will be involved. Included in the membership of the National Advisory Group for NHS Direct are the patients association, the CHC chief officer as well as representatives of the mental health interests—to which I should now like to turn—and the interface between NHS Direct and the issue of specialist helplines.
We believe that, in the longer term, we fully expect there to be a continuing need for other specialist telephone services after NHS Direct has become established as a national service. Indeed, one of the advantages of NHS Direct will be a single and, over time, very well known telephone number which the public will recognise not only as a quick and reliable route to information and advice on a wide range of health issues—as the right reverend Prelate said—but also as a gateway to other services and other providers of information. It seems quite likely, therefore, that NHS Direct, far from taking over the role of specialist helplines, will have the effect of promoting them by referring more people on to them.
Thus, as NHS Direct develops, there will be the opportunity to build up links with other specialist helpline providers so that callers can be passed on seamlessly, in some cases without the need to redial, to other sources of help. The objective of NHS Direct is to provide first line help and advice. It should not take over the role of the specialist. What it can do is to provide far better signposting for the public who otherwise might not be able to locate easily specialist sources of information. We are keen to work closely with specialist helplines in developing NHS Direct. Both the Telephone Helpline Association and the Samaritans are represented on the National Advisory Group for NHS Direct.
I do not have time to deal with any of the other issues except to say that I believe the possibilities offered by NHS Direct of going even wider into all sorts of other areas like telephone booking of appointments and access to other services is enormous. I understand the need that has been stressed for proper evaluation and to make sure that we do not undermine services that already exist.
234
However, there is an impatience to move forward because there is an enormous potential for improving the speed, quality and accessibility of information services to patients in this country.

Scotland Bill
9.3 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 5.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 85, line 5, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The Parliament may require the annual reports of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Commission to be laid before it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 221, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223.
Those noble Lords who were involved in the Committee stage of this Bill will observe that these amendments are similar to ones we discussed and developed at that time, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He withdrew them after an interesting debate. I retabled them because, despite the clear assurances from the Government in relation to their intentions, when I read the Minister's response in col. 1317 of Hansard I wondered why none of these items was to be placed on the face of the Bill. In each case the Minister said that the intention was to make provision through an executive devolution order under Clause 59. The question that kept coming to me was: if the Government intended to use the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to deal with these issues, why did we have so much other detail in the Bill when many of the other issues could have been dealt with in exactly the same way?
I return to these issues therefore to ask why they should not be put on the face of the Bill. Issues have moved on, as they often do, since we discussed this matter on 27th July. And I should like to take the amendments one at a time because the one in relation to which issues have moved on is the last one I should like to discuss.
In relation to Amendment No. 222, in Committee I noticed that funding direct broadcasting is currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and therefore it will naturally fall to the new Scottish executive to do the same. Why will not the Government put that on the face of the Bill rather than using Section 59 proceedings? It seems to me to be a bit illogical when I look at some of the other matters that have been placed on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 221 and 223 relate to the laying of reports and appointments. The Minister took those on board and said that they would be dealt with under Clause 59. But why cannot they be placed on the face of the Bill? In relation to the reports, the BBC indicated that it will lay the report before the parliament.
But I am interested in Amendment No. 223. At the risk of offending the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am less concerned with the Scottish membership of the Independent Television Commission; it has a different role from that of the BBC. The ITC does not deliver anything at its own hand.
We already have the devolution of independent broadcasting, both radio and television, in Scotland. The bodies which operate independent television for Scotland are bodies which are owned—probably by the various city funds—and managed from Scotland. They deal with Scottish issues and decide whether they will take part in any national programmes. They are very much on their own. That is true of what was Grampian Television and Scottish Television—I cannot remember what Scottish Television now calls itself, but perhaps that is what it calls itself now, although it used to be called STV. Both of those organisations are owned by the increasingly powerful Scottish Media Group, in which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was a principal player for some time. They are Scottish bodies and they make decisions in Scotland.
There was a similar situation with independent radio. Independent radio was very much the brainchild of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. In Scotland, it was built up very successfully and it was locally based. I am less worried about that than I am about the BBC. I believe that there will be a huge dilemma and potentially a huge difference of opinion between the BBC in Scotland and the BBC nationally. There are signs already that there will be considerable tensions. I doubt whether the British Broadcasting Corporation believes for one minute in devolution, despite the fact that its Scottish headquarters at Queen Margaret Drive in Scotland has for decades been the source of a lot of the propaganda in favour of devolution. The BBC in Scotland does not find much comfort when it discusses matters of devolution with its bosses in London.
I am concerned about the appointment of a national governor. I can foresee a situation where the BBC down here might say to the Government here, "To be honest, we do not much like the person suggested from Scotland; he will come down here and attempt to get far too much independence from the BBC; Culture Minister, would you not prefer to have a safer pair of hands?" I can assure your Lordships that such conversations do take place. A "safer pair of hands" is always an invitation from officials to Ministers that it would be dangerous to do the other thing. There is a danger that that could happen. I believe that putting this provision on the face of the Bill would strengthen the Scottish executive.
A recent press report will bring to your Lordships' attention the reason why I am concerned about that. Essentially, the BBC in Scotland has expressed a wish to opt out of the six o'clock news once devolution comes along and to have a news programme presented from Scotland, giving the Scottish parliamentary position, Scottish views, UK views and world views. The current situation is that at six o'clock we have the national news and at 6.30 we have the Scottish news. The position after devolution will be that a lot of things
236
in the national news will not be in the least bit relevant to Scotland. Who in Scotland will be bothered about what Mr. Frank Dobson thinks about health? That will have nothing to do with health in Scotland as he will not be part of the same government.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Presumably he is aware that that is true at present. A lot of views generated from London are irrelevant in Scotland because the subject is already devolved administratively.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I acknowledged that, but at least that was within one United Kingdom Government, whereas, after devolution, it will not be like that. Very often decisions made on health are made jointly by Ministers in the UK Government and therefore the same initiative—if it is an initiative—is developed by the UK Minister on behalf of the English health service in parallel with the Scottish health Minister. That will not necessarily happen in future because there will be two quite separate governments.
The point is that the BBC in Scotland would like to go its own way, but it is not being allowed to do so. The BBC nationally will not allow the BBC in Scotland to do that. The interesting thing is that BBC Radio has already gone its own way. In the mornings in Scotland I listen to "Good Morning Scotland" and I do not listen to "Today". "Good Morning Scotland" encompasses events happening in Scotland and around the world. It is a perfectly good programme. In fact, I think it is an excellent programme. In the evening, a programme called "News Drive" takes the place of "PM". Major world events are reported on it.
There does not seem to be a problem in radio, but there is a problem in television. One understands from a report in the Herald on Friday 16th October that there is considerable difficulty. It states:
"BBC governors are due to meet the Broadcasting Council for Scotland on Wednesday amid rising talk of resignation among its 12 members if London keeps control against the wishes of BBC Scotland, its controller, Mr John McCormick, and senior staff. Last night it emerged that Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar has given his conditional blessing to BBC Scotland's ambitions"—
that is to have a fully Scottish-based six o'clock news—
"One BBC insider said: 'Donald is a reasonable man"'—
we all say "hear, hear" to that—
"who accepts the editorial logic but his one worry is that there would be a lapse into the kaleyard".
I can almost hear Donald Dewar saying that. The report continues:
"other Ministers are not convinced … Mrs. Helen Liddell, and Defence Secretary George Robertson. Both are noted for their strong anti-SNP stance and take the view that devolved Scottish broadcasting would give succour to the Nationalists, the strongest supporters of the proposed change, at a sensitive period in Scottish politics".
I am amused to think that they do not think that devolution will give succour to the Nationalists but that devolving the BBC will.

237
I read from that article because I believe that it illustrates the point. Here we already have, before devolution has come along, a severe difference of opinion within the BBC between London and Scotland. In those circumstances, my concerns about the appointment of the national governor for Scotland are well justified. Despite the Minister's assurance, I can see that there may be pressure not to use the executive devolution order under Clause 59 on the issue. In fact, as far as concerns the appointment, it will just be a matter of the Scottish executive being "consulted".
On the last occasion, the Minister said:
"I hope that that goes most of the way to meeting the intentions of the noble Lord".—[Official Report, 27/7/98; col. 1317.]
That is probably true; indeed, it goes most of the way. However, it is the little bit further that it does not go that bothers me. It means that if the Government down here do not like, or are persuaded by the BBC that they should not like, the suggested name from Scotland, they will look for someone else and will not appoint that person. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, looking puzzled because that is the reality of what happens inside government: powerful departments try to have their way.
Although I suspect that there may be a huge argument going on—and there is currently according to press reports—I believe that a bigger argument may arise in the future. If that is the case, the danger will be that, if the Scottish executive puts forward someone who is very sympathetic to this idea and wants to see BBC Scotland having some devolved powers and allowed to opt-out as I mentioned, the Culture Secretary—I presume—will bend to pressure from the BBC and decide to look for someone else in Scotland. That is why I should like to see the appointment being an exemption from reservation so that the appointment to the BBC and the ITC will be made entirely at the behest of the Scottish executive. In that way, the Government of the United Kingdom would have no way in which they could decide not to accept the proposal. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, on these Benches we are immensely flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has decided on Report to adopt for his side the amendments which we moved in Committee. For our part, we felt that we had a pretty good debate at that time when we went into such matters. I wait with interest to hear the Minister's response as regards current amendments.
As someone who has been playing a sort of Back-Bench spectator role for the most part in the proceedings on the Bill, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that his brilliance in debating is one of the things that made some of the longueurs of this affair tolerable. Indeed, it is interesting to note that we should be discussing this subject at the end of the Report stage.
I believe that it comes down to whether such matters—these which were thoroughly debated in Committee—those dealing with on the face of the Bill, or whether they can be dealt with more adequately without accepting the amendments which, for our part,
238
we were ready not to press on the last occasion. On the three matters which are mentioned in the current amendments, I shall turn, first, to the annual reports of the BBC and the ITC. As we were reassured in Committee, there is no doubt that when the parliament is established and the executive is working such reports will be laid before the Scottish parliament. We do not need material on the face of the Bill at this late stage to bring that about. I cannot imagine that the Scottish parliament, in which I have very great confidence, will be slow in wishing to debate the important issues raised by the noble Lord. Indeed, I agree with very much of what he said on some of the issues regarding broadcasting in Scotland, especially BBC broadcasting.
Again, having regard to the stage that we have now reached with the Bill, the question of the promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland comes to my mind. I wait to hear with interest what assurances the Minister can give us in that respect. On the face of it, it seems rather dotty that Gaelic broadcasting could be a reserved matter to be dealt with by those people knowledgable about Gaelic broadcasting in the various recesses of Whitehall. But that is not the reality of the matter, and I hope to be reassured.
However, I turn now to one of the most important matters. It was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as being one of the most important aspects of his amendments; namely, the appointment of the national governor for Scotland and the appointment of a Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission.
I cannot speak with any knowledge of the BBC's procedures but it was certainly always my understanding as an interested party that the national governor for Scotland at the BBC—the polite phrase is, "after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland"—was someone whom the Secretary of State for Scotland was ready to approve as a member of that governing body. That situation, which has existed for many years, will now, of course, be transferred to the First Minister for Scotland. I have no doubt that that will be the underlying reality.
I did not quite understand something that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said. I think he may have misunderstood the position as regards the Independent Television Commission. I cannot speak with total accuracy about the latest situation but in my time the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which was the predecessor, had an important Scottish member. To my knowledge that appointment had to be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland and will undoubtedly require the approval of the First Minister for Scotland. That does not require a provision on the face of the Bill, although I should be happy to have it if one wants additional reassurance. However, it is not necessary of itself.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is probably mistaken about the situation with regard to commercial radio in Scotland. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, will correct me if I am wrong. I believe there is still a United Kingdom Radio Authority and I am happy to say it has not inhibited the Scottishness

239
of Scottish independent radio. Therefore it does not seem to me at this stage that the case is made out—in terms of draftsmanship of the Bill—for putting all these matters on the face of the Bill. However, I shall await to hear whether we shall be totally reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has to tell us on the substance of the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised.
I wish to make two general comments. My starting point is that I agree and sympathise with what the noble Lord said although I am bound to say—I hope that he will not take this amiss as it is intended to be a compliment—that the Conservative Opposition's approach to this Bill began with a negative attitude towards devolution. Much of the proceedings on this Bill in Committee—led with brilliant debating skill by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—have outflanked all of us in enthusiasm for Scottish devolution. I can see no case for Scottish BBC television not having its main news bulletins as Scottish news bulletins dealing with the United Kingdom, the news from Scotland as a nation, the news from the United Kingdom, as a state of which we are all members, and the international news, but viewed through Scottish eyes. I think there is a battle to be won on this matter within the bureaucracy of the BBC. I sympathise totally with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had to say about this.
However, I utter a cautionary note although I am not sure I shall carry all my colleagues with me on this. I regard the degree to which the United Kingdom broadcasting system—that is, the BBC, ITV, and the other new developments including Sky News and so on—has a United Kingdom dimension to be one of the vital cements that holds the United Kingdom together and creates a climate of opinion that there is a United Kingdom climate of opinion.
Therefore a tricky professional balance has to be struck between having a United Kingdom broadcasting system that makes us all feel members of the United Kingdom and at the same time has the vitality in Scotland to make us all feel proud of Scotland and Scottish broadcasting. That is the professional challenge ahead of us.
Subject to what has been said, I do not feel that this matter requires a lot of new wording at this late stage in the Bill. What is needed is to follow through the realities of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 221 and 223. As is well-known and appreciated, the BBC is governed by its Royal Charter, which was renewed in 1996. As I indicated when we last considered this part of the Bill, some changes in procedures will be made in relation to appointments and annual reports reflecting the establishment of the Scottish parliament and executive. The Royal Charter provides that the Board of Governors of the BBC should include a national governor for Scotland, selected on the basis of his or her knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of the people of Scotland. It
240
has been custom and practice for the Secretary of State to be consulted in advance of that appointment. When the Scottish executive is in place, the appointment of the national governor for Scotland of the BBC will be made after consultation with Scottish Ministers, as both noble Lords identified. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is right. That sort of consultation basically means someone who has the support of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised the possible dangers—for instance, that some awful radical might want to seize more for BBC Scotland than the BBC might wish to concede on a UK basis and that pressure would be brought to appoint a "safe pair of hands", a phrase with which I am now familiar. I should have thought that the pressure to appoint a safe pair of hands could be more effectively applied under the present arrangements, whereby the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are members of the same Executive. It would be rather difficult to apply that sort of pressure when there are different executives, when the First Minister will be consulted and will give his view. It would be rather difficult for the Secretary of State for Culture, dealing with the head of what is effectively another executive, to be able to obstruct and thwart the nomination of the Scottish executive.
The Royal Charter provides that the annual report of the BBC shall be sent to the Secretary of State, who lays the report before both Houses of Parliament. That is the present arrangement. In future, the report, together with the annual review of BBC Scotland, will also be sent to Scottish Ministers, who will in turn lay those before the Scottish parliament—exactly the procedure envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I am sure that members of the Scottish parliament will take a keen interest in broadcasting in Scotland and will wish to debate it. It will be for the Scottish parliament to decide whether it wishes to invite members of the broadcasting community in Scotland to submit reports or appear before the parliament or a committee of it. My understanding is that broadcasters will be willing, indeed keen, to give evidence to the Scottish parliament.
For the Independent Television Commission, we intend to make provision through the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to secure that the annual report will be laid before the Scottish parliament as well as at Westminster. We shall similarly provide that the Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission is appointed only after consultation with Scottish Ministers.
I move to Amendment No. 222, which relates to Gaelic broadcasting. As we have said before, the promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland is clearly a matter of primarily Scottish interest. In practice, the funding is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in line with the usual arm's length approach to broadcasting the funding of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee is made through the Independent Television Commission. The function of funding Gaelic broadcasting will be transferred by the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to the Scottish Ministers, who will be answerable to the

241
Scottish parliament. It will be open to them, subject to the agreement of the Scottish parliament, to vary the annual allocation of funds to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee.
I do not believe that the amendment would bring about any improvement or increased accountability for Gaelic broadcasting. By executive devolution, government funding for Gaelic broadcasting will be a Scottish responsibility, albeit within the unified regulatory framework for broadcasting for the United Kingdom. That is the key to the Clause 59 procedure, which is a means by which executive devolution is achieved within a framework where the function itself is reserved. I believe that that is the appropriate way to tackle the problem rather than to bring it on to the face of the Bill.
With those assurances, which I hope I have made as persuasively as I made them in Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating the Government's assurances on these three amendments and perhaps going a little further than he went in Committee.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, seemed flattered by the fact that I had picked up his amendments, I feel a little flattered by the words he said about me. We need to be careful not to have too much of a love-in between these Opposition Benches, or the Government Front Bench might become worried.
I am content with the explanation, although I still think it is a little odd that some matters have to be put on the face of the Bill while others can be dealt with by executive order. However, at this late stage of the Bill, the matter is not worth pursuing.
I looked carefully at the schedule which tells me what happens to orders. I notice that orders of this kind are Type A orders, which means that they will have to be approved by resolution of both Houses at Westminster and of the Edinburgh parliament. We shall therefore have an opportunity to debate these issues when they are brought forward by the Minister under Clause 59.
I am not sure that the noble Lord totally allayed my concerns with regard to Amendment No. 223 regarding the appointment of a national governor for Scotland. I was interested to hear that he recognised the phrase "a safe pair of hands". I remain a little concerned, although I am reassured by having his views on record that in the new circumstances it will be a great deal more difficult for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to decline to accept a nomination of the Scottish executive than it might be under the current situation, where the Secretary of State and the Culture Minister are members of one government and the matter can easily be resolved in the corridors of Whitehall. I understand that point. I suppose that in the real world, if there were a dispute, we would soon read about it in the newspapers, and I suspect that the Government would quickly be told that they were about to create a
242
big issue in Scotland and that they should back off. Almost reassuring myself, adding to the Minister's reassurance, I am content and I look forward to the debates we shall have when these orders are, in the fullness of time, laid before your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 85, line 39, leave out from ("authority") to second ("to") and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 86, line 25, leave out from ("Timescales") to end of line.
The noble Lady said: My Lords, the House may be surprised that I have returned to this matter when a somewhat similar amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was disagreed with in the Division at Committee stage. This amendment is slightly different in that "Timescales" have been left out; that is to say left in the reserved matters. I believe that the inclusion of them in the previous amendments may have been a sticking point with the Government and with some noble Lords. Having had an explanation of what the timescales are from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at the Committee stage (at col. 1331 of the Official Report of 27th July) I am persuaded that they should continue to be reserved matters.
As I am sure all your Lordships are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has announced his intention to introduce a Private Member's Bill next Session to do, as I understand it. virtually what this amendment does. But the reason for his Bill is the opposite of mine, according to a letter from him published in the Telegraph on Saturday 24th October. He would like to have British Summer Time in winter in England because he believes that it would lead to a reduction in crime, give more time for outdoor sports and help trade and tourism. He fears that the introduction of this will always be blocked by the Scots, who do not want it.
On the other hand, I am a Scot and live in the north of Scotland, where we found British Summer Time in winter quite intolerable during the experimental period between 1968 and 1971, when it was inflicted upon us. On the 21st December, the winter solstice, there is a difference of 42 minutes between the time of sunrise in London, which is at 8.04 and the time of sunrise in Aberdeen, which is at 8.46. There is another 22 minutes difference between the time of sunrise at Aberdeen and the time of sunrise at Lerwick, which is at 9.08. That means that with British Summer Time sunrise in Aberdeen would not be until 9.46 and sunrise in Shetland would not be until 10.08. I suspect that if faced with darkness until fourteen minutes to ten or eight minutes past ten in London, Londoners might not be quite so enthusiastic about summer time in winter.
It is much more difficult to get up and get going in the morning when it is dark. The body's built-in clock rebels. No non-nocturnal animal in its right mind does a thing like that. I have heard that this can contribute to clinical depression.
The Government's opposition to this aspect of the amendment is very short-sighted. Far from being another nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom, this should help to avoid the break-up of the United Kingdom. If we Scots are contented we are very much less likely to wish to be independent from the United Kingdom than if we are unhappy, as we assuredly would be should the Government try to impose summer time on us in winter.
A report has been published in the past few days which suggests that if we had summer time all the year round, 100 fewer people per year would be killed on the roads. I am afraid that, sooner or later, the nanny Government will act on that report and inflict summer time in winter on Scotland, taking the line that nasty nannies take: "It's good for you, so you'll just have to learn to like it." I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I greatly support what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is attempting to do. During all my time in another place I was very much in favour of Greenwich Mean Time in the winter. Indeed, when we had a Bill before us some two or three years ago, we were very much in the lead in defeating it. I feel it is most important that we try to remain a United Kingdom in dealing with this matter. I have read what my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare intends to do but I would gladly have quite a big bet with him that he will not get his Bill through either House of Parliament.
I live as near the Border as anyone in this House and I know how totally impossible it would be if we ended up having two timescales in the United Kingdom. I really could not chop and change my watch three or four times a day, and that would go for many of my former constituents and many of those who live in Cumberland but come to work in Dumfries and Galloway. In addition, there are all the chaotic issues of train and airline timetables and so on.
Many people tend to forget that longitude is as important as latitude in dealing with Greenwich Mean Time. Few people seem to realise that Edinburgh is west of Liverpool and that the country has a very westward lean. The further west one goes, the worse it becomes. If one is in Stornoway, it is a very serious situation even as compared with being in Aberdeen. We have to bring it home that the whole issue of summer time must remain on a United Kingdom basis. I would be most disappointed if any United Kingdom government tried to introduce different timescales within the United Kingdom or, more importantly, underestimated the serious impact it would have on Scotland if we went to summer time in winter—not that we seem to get any summer time any time. But the position is so desperately different in Scotland. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has rightly said, we must not be carried away by
244
emotional arguments about the time of children leaving school in the evening relative to their going to school in the morning. Many other statistics can be produced to show just how serious it would be if we changed to summer time in the winter.
So I hope that this will remain a United Kingdom responsibility and I trust that whichever government are in power they will ensure that we have one timescale throughout the United Kingdom and will bear in mind the representations they will receive from the Scottish parliament that we must not go away from Greenwich Mean Time in the winter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Monro. I understand very well what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is saying and what her aspiration is but I would just point out to her that, should this matter be devolved to the Scots parliament, it would be very much easier for the rest of the United Kingdom to decide to change the arrangements. They would then be changed without having to consider Scotland and then Scotland would be obliged to follow suit. We would be more likely to get the wrong answer by having the matter devolved than we would at the moment. At the moment, the United Kingdom Parliament is hanging on to the present arrangements largely out of consideration for Scotland. If the matter were devolved, it would not have to do that. Therefore, I think that what the noble Lady is saying might well prove to be counter-productive. So I do not think I can support her.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I rise to speak on this subject yet again with a certain feeling of dismay, as we have discussed it five times in the past four years. There is a kind of repertory company which always appears to debate the matter. However, we have so far managed to kick it away into the far distance.
I should very much like to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—I know what she is trying to do—but I do not think I can, if only for consistency—something for which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, keeps asking. I say that because a Private Member's Bill a year or two ago proposed precisely that. We managed to torpedo it in another place and it disappeared.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, makes a salient point. He states correctly that this is a matter of longitude rather than latitude. Edinburgh is in the extreme east of Scotland and is further west than Bristol—let alone Liverpool—which is in the west of England. Often it is forgotten that the country is tipped over in that way and it is not simply a north-south question.
I am tempted to support the amendment moved by the noble Lady for one reason; namely, that if this were devolved to a Scottish parliament it would prevent the United Kingdom Parliament from doing anything so daft as to abandon GMT in favour of Central European Time. Oddly enough, this is one of the very few occasions on which Britain is not out of step with the rest of the world; it is the rest of the world that is out of step with Britain. (Noble Lords should not chortle so quickly.) Strictly speaking, France and Spain should be in the same time zone as Britain: Greenwich Mean

245
Time. For reasons best known to themselves, they have adopted the Germanic system and joined the Teutons in following Central European Time, whereas they should be in the same time zone as Britain. The Portuguese also adopted Central European Time for a short period but quite sensibly gave it up.
What I should like to gain from this debate is an assurance from my noble friend Lord Sewel that whatever happens to this amendment, the Government, of which he is an outstanding member, will not under any circumstances abandon GMT in favour of Central European Time.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I might well have been in favour of this amendment since it is not moved by the clan Mackay. But I believe that we must stick to one time in the United Kingdom. The argument advanced by my noble neighbour Lady Carnegy of Lour (not "Lower", for the benefit of those on the Front Bench) is correct. The disadvantage of having any form of separation in timescale would be excessive. That point has been made by the noble Lord who has just spoken. In spite of its origin, I cannot support the amendment. Britain must have one simple timescale. I have been considering the arguments that have been adduced about accidents at night as compared with accidents in the morning. I believe that that must be taken into account when considering timescale, but that it must be a British timescale I have no doubt.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has observed, we have debated this matter on a number of occasions. Previous debates usually reveal differences inside the clan Mackay. My fellow clansman, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is one of those who is vigorously in favour of Central European Time. Unfortunately, he is not here and so the clan is united this evening. I am not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, joins our clan. Clearly, one of his forebears could not spell correctly and got it slightly wrong.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, described people like me as non-nocturnal animals; namely, that they have severe difficulty in getting out of bed on dark winter mornings. I far prefer the daylight.
The danger of the amendment was spelt out by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. It is that, if the Scottish parliament were to have the decision for itself and the Parliament of the United Kingdom were no longer responsible for Scotland in this regard, the pressure which your Lordships and Members of the other place from Scotland and the north of England could exert on the UK Government might be diminished. Those foolish voices that would like to put us in a time-zone in which nature has not put us may win the day, which would be difficult for Scotland.
I would prefer to put an arm-lock on this issue and say that the United Kingdom Parliament could make no change unless the Scottish parliament agreed. That would put a double-nelson on the whole issue. The Bill does not contain such a provision, but between now and
246
Monday we might look at that as a way of enabling the Scottish government to have some control over the issue.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has made her point. The danger is that, with Scottish pressure off this place, it might decide to go its own way. That would he extremely difficult because much of Scotland is to the west and the further west one goes the more ridiculous is Central European Time. Equally, as the European Community expands to the east the more ridiculous Central European Time will be for people at the far end, especially if the argument about children going to school in the daylight and coming back in the dark is true.
The United States manages to run a sophisticated, successful country with a number of time zones which do not inhibit communication between one side and the other. Neither is it a problem in the Soviet Union. I believe that we should stick firmly in the Greenwich time-zone where God put us. The issue should be left to the United Kingdom Parliament, perhaps with an arm-lock from the Scottish parliament. Perhaps between now and Monday the noble Lady will consider how to apply the arm-lock.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as a new member of the repertory company referred to by my noble friend Lord Howie, I regret that, for reasons already outlined, the Government are unable to accept the amendment. We are anxious to have common standards throughout the United Kingdom. For that reason, timescales, time-zones, the calendar and summer time have been reserved.
Reference to the recent announcement of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, conjures up a situation which, putting aside the obvious cynicism, concerns many people in Scotland. The possibility of Scotland ending up in a different time-zone is horrifying and the thought of commuters having to adjust their watches every time they crossed the Border from say, Carlisle to Dumfries, does not appeal to us.
The Government do not support the view that because it happens in America, Australia or Russia, it should happen in the United Kingdom. As regards Central European Time and its possible introduction into the United Kingdom as a whole, a number of Scottish factors would have to be borne in mind if it were to be considered again. I would expect them to be given the weight that they deserve before any United Kingdom decision was reached at Westminster.
In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said for—very little for—and a very great deal against these amendments. Incidentally, before I go any further, I think I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I feel very unsure that the United Kingdom Parliament would consider Scotland's interests in the future after a Scottish parliament has been established. I really do feel very unsure about that. I think that is wishful thinking.

247
Under the circumstances, I think that I am going to withdraw the amendments but I am going to come back next Monday at Third Reading with exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, suggested. I think it would be a great pity for Scotland and England to have separate time zones. Provided that Scotland is not going to be lumbered with British Summer Time in winter, Central European Time, or any other foreign nastinesses of that kind, I would be perfectly happy for Scotland and England always to have the same time zones. But I think that we must take some steps at this stage to try to make sure that we are not going to be lumbered with British Summer Time in winter in Scotland. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 86, line 34, at end insert—

SECTION 7—MINERAL DEPOSITS
Reservation
The exploitation of mineral deposits of unprecedented or substantial national significance.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this issue originally because I noticed that the Government dealt with outer space issues as a reserved subject. It therefore seemed altogether reasonable to reserve minerals under the ocean depths. However, the Government resisted that for a number of reasons outlined by the Minister in a letter to me. He made it quite clear that coal, oil and gas would be reserved but other minerals would not. My concern was that valuable mineral deposits could be discovered under the ocean depths. The Minister stated in his reply that the management of the Crown Estate was reserved but the Crown property would not be. He went on to say:
"It will thus be for the [Scottish] parliament to legislate about mineral resources (other than oil, coal and gas) found on land or under the seabed".
I immediately wondered what would happen were there to be a massive discovery of uranium within Scotland. We know that there is uranium in Scotland. We do not know how much, but we know that it exists. There are countless other mineral deposits—for example, gold. That may not be commercial, but there are many other mineral deposits. The Minister stated in his letter:
"Were valuable mineral deposits to be found in Scotland, their exploitation would be of great significance, in the first instance, to the people of Scotland. The Members of the Scottish parliament will be best placed to make decisions in the best interests of the Scottish people".
I appreciate that that argument would recommend itself to the Scottish National Party. But if there is a massive find of uranium, I simply do not believe that the British Parliament will say, "This is not a matter of any concern to ourselves".
The Minister acknowledged there was a problem. He went on to say in his letter:
"the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 … can be changed by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 29".
I appreciate that the essence of his argument is that this Parliament is sovereign and, if for any reason mineral deposits which are of great significance to Britain are found, this Parliament can take action and alter Schedule 5 by amending it. But he states in his letter that this could be done:
"If the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments agreed that that was in the best interests of the UK".
It may well be that the political government in the Scottish parliament is entirely different from the composition of the government of the Westminster Parliament. If the two executives have different political parties in charge, there will be the potential for considerable conflict.
It seems to me that in the absence of any concordats being suggested, the Minister is relying on good will between the two parliaments. It may well be that there is no such good will. It will be no use relying on gentlemen's agreements or on the subject being well interpreted. It may be subject to misinterpretation or no interpretation.
I suggest that unless this matter is specified clearly in the schedule, before the parliament is set up, it will be a source of continuing conflict. It is surely only a matter of time until major mineral deposits are found either under Scottish land or under the ocean depths. In that case, it seems that reservations should be put into the Bill. If they are not, we shall be storing up problems for the future. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have always thought that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, had a good deal of sense in them. However, as regards this amendment, if we find untold gold, silver or platinum in Scotland, then the exploitation thereof must be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Is that the correct interpretation? If it is, I am against the amendment. If we find treasure in Scotland, we should be able to exploit it. Surely to goodness, if we find treasure, it should be Scottish.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him about uranium, which my noble friend mentioned. It is a matter of natural interest if we happen to find uranium.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, there is no question of the Scottish parliament acting against the national interest. If there is uranium which requires exploitation and great control, the Scottish parliament will agree to that. The Scottish parliament will be sensible about this matter. But if it is found on Scottish soil, surely the Scottish parliament should have control over it.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, one or two matters should be taken into consideration on this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. It must have been some years since I looked at it, but there is an old Act which goes back before the Union of the Crowns which specifies that gold, silver or other precious metals

249
found in Scotland belong to the Crown. I am fairly certain that that old Act is still on the statute book. It has resulted in deterring a number of prospectors looking for precious metals from ever trying to seek its development in Scotland.
The other matter which has put off the development of many ores in Scotland is that the strata has been so tilted that it is almost vertical, which makes it quite impossible to mine in any way other than by open-cast. Those two matters are worth considering.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas has a point. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has rather walked into a trap which will mean that he will have to bring forward amendments on Third Reading to deal with two other parts of the schedule. It seems rather odd that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, thinks that any treasures yet to be found should be the property of the Scottish parliament but yet is quite content that the treasures already found—namely, oil, gas and coal—should be reserved to the United Kingdom. It seems to me that that is the opposite of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, may not have noticed that up to now we have been living in the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that we shall continue to live in the United Kingdom—which adds to the argument. If it is good enough for oil and gas, as it is in Section 2, and for coal, as it is in Section 3, it seems to me that, looking to the future and the possibility that some other mineral resources may be found, they should be treated in exactly the same way as those which have already been found such as oil, gas and coal. It is amazing that we say that the current wealth found in Scottish waters and under the land in Scotland ought to be reserved to the United Kingdom, but if we are lucky enough to find any future wealth we can keep it ourselves. It is very illogical. My noble friend has a point and I look forward to the Government accepting it.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation as to why he considers this amendment to be necessary. I hope to be able to reassure him that it is not. As I understand it, the noble Lord has particular concern that if in future valuable mineral deposits were discovered in Scotland, this parliament will be unable to legislate over the matter. It is only proper that the exploitation of mineral deposits should be generally devolved along with such matters as planning and the environment, given their importance to the Scottish environment and to Scottish communities. For example, I am thinking of the effects such exploitation would have on the economic development of adjacent communities, on the quality of the environment and the amenities of nearby towns and the countryside. There are also the consequences for the jobs of local people and their livelihoods. It is certainly a matter that should be left for the Scottish parliament to consider and regulate.
250
The ownership and exploitation of coal, oil and gas, however, are all reserved by Schedule 5, Section 4. It is considered that they should form an exception to the devolution of the exploitation of mineral deposits, given their importance as energy supplies and the need to maintain a uniform regulatory regime in these industries. Were valuable mineral deposits to be found in Scotland their exploitation should, in the first instance, be addressed in the context of the communities that will be affected by the development of the minerals. I believe that members of the Scottish parliament will be best placed to make decisions in the best interests of these people.
The noble Lord argues a case at the extreme in that there have been some unprecedented finds of valuable minerals. If that is the case, it is possible for the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 of the Bill to be changed by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 29. If mineral deposits of unprecedented national significance were discovered in the future, it would be possible for Schedule 5 to be amended if the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments agree that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to do so. If the noble Lord is arguing a case at the extreme, I have to answer him in a similar way. If it became a matter of absolute national importance and significance, it would be possible to amend the Act itself by legislation in this Parliament. But I do not anticipate that. I do not believe that the noble Lord creates a situation which is grounded in sufficient reality for us to make provision for it in the Bill. On that basis, I trust that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. But there is a basic inconsistency in it because coal, oil and gas are reserved, but uranium, which can be used as a nuclear fuel, is not reserved. I am simply saying to the Minister that if uranium deposits are discovered in considerable quantities, it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom Parliament would say that it is not a matter for it. If the United Kingdom Parliament intervenes and does what the Minister says by introducing an Order in Council, the Scottish parliament will very much resent such interference. However much the Minister may say that the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign, if it is not a reserved matter the Scottish parliament will very much resent that interference and it will give rise to conflict between the two parliaments.
I am suggesting to the Minister that it would be better if this matter was thought out in greater depth and these matters reserved, otherwise he will be storing up problems for the future. Having said that, I have put down a marker and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 226A to 226D:
Page 87, line 4, leave out from ("authority") to ("a") in line 5 and insert ("if some of its functions relate to reserved matters and some do not, unless it is").
Page 87, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
("( ) An authority to which this paragraph applies is referred to in this Act as a Scottish public authority with mixed functions.").

251
Page 87, line 17, at end insert ("(referred to in this Act as a Scottish public authority with no reserved functions)").
Page 87, line 29, at end insert—
("Financial assistance to industry
.—(1) This Schedule does not reserve giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) does not apply to giving financial assistance to any activities in pursuance of a power exercisable only in relation to activities which are reserved,

(b) does not apply to Part I of this Schedule, except paragraph 9, or to a body to which paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule applies,

(c) is without prejudice to the exceptions from the reservations in Sections 2 and 3 of Head 5.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the question whether any matter other than financial assistance to which that sub-paragraph applies is reserved.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 226A to 226D en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 226E:
Page 87, line 31, after first ("to") insert ("the subject-matter of").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 226E and 226F constitute drafting amendments to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 which say how references to "any enactment" in Schedule 5 are to be read.
Schedule 5 describes reserved matters and generally speaking is intended to fix those matters as at the principal appointed day. This is done sometimes by using general words and sometimes by referring to the subject matter of an enactment. In both cases it is intended that the description is fixed as at the principal appointed day but what may fall within the description may change.
At the moment the Bill provides that all enactments referred to in Schedule 5 are to be read as they have effect on the principal appointed day. That is correct where an enactment is referred to in order to identify subject matter. The reserved matter is the subject matter of that enactment on the principal appointed day.
However, where the reference is not to the subject matter of an enactment—for example, on page 72, at line 38, part of the reservation of insolvency is described in terms of,
"any other enactment relating to the sequestration of the estate of any person —
it is appropriate for the reference to be dynamic and automatically to cover future enactments. The amendment permits this to happen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 226F:
Page 87, line 32, after ("to") insert ("the subject-matter of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Modifications of enactments]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226G:
Page 96, line 10, at end insert—
("United Nations Act 1946 (c.45)
. In section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (measures to give effect to decisions of Security Council), in subsection (4), for the words following "shall" there is substituted "forthwith after it is made be laid—

(a) before Parliament; and

(b) if any provision made by the Order would, if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, before that Parliament."").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 1 of the United Nations Act enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to give effect to resolutions of the Security Council. Noble Lords will be aware that that happened recently in connection with the venue of the proposed trial in the Lockerbie case following the United Nations resolution.
Amendment No. 226G amends the wording of subsection (4) of Section 1 of the Act to provide that any Order in Council made under it will be laid before the Scottish parliament as well as before Westminster if any provision in the order would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, while I can well understand why this amendment has been tabled, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can explain whether or not it would be competent for the Scottish parliament to challenge, either in principle or in detail, an Order in Council which may be laid before it in the terms of this amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord also say what would happen if there was a dispute between the Scottish parliament and the Westminster Parliament in that regard?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with both questions together. The amendment is designed to cover a situation similar to that surrounding the Lockerbie trial. If there were a United Nations resolution which affected a Scottish criminal trial, then to give effect to that resolution there would require to be an Order in Council. However, because it affects the Scottish criminal law, the intention would be to place it before the Scottish parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament.
Of course, the Scottish parliament would be obliged to give effect to the United Kingdom's international obligations in terms of the United Nations resolution, which would call on the United Kingdom as a whole to comply. The Order in Council, having been ratified by the Scottish parliament, would enable the Scottish courts to proceed in accordance with Scottish procedure.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he said that the Order in Council would be ratified by the Scottish parliament. I have looked at the United Nations Act

253
1946 and, as I understand it, the procedure involves the provision being laid before this Parliament and, quite frankly, this Parliament has to take it or leave it because it involves implementation of an international obligation.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct. "Ratified" was the wrong word. Indeed, I believe that I referred earlier to the provision being "laid before".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226H:
Page 97, line 18, leave out from ("Scotland)") to end of line 24 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (9)—

(i) after "effect" there is inserted "with the omission of subsection (8) and", and

(ii) in paragraph (a), for "(8)" there is substituted "(7)", and

(b) after that subsection there is inserted

"(10) The remuneration of members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland shall be charged on the Scottish Consolidated Fund.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. The amendments made by the Bill to the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 ensure that remuneration of members of the Lands Tribunal is a charge on the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The amendment makes the position clearer than did the original provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 226J:
Page 97, line 42, at end insert—
("Superannuation Act 1972 (c.11)
. In section 1(6) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation as respects civil servants, etc.), for "or the Consolidated Fund" there is substituted "the Consolidated Fund or the Scottish Consolidated Fund".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will enable the Minister responsible for the Civil Service to admit persons remunerated out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme where that may be appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 226K:
Page 98, leave out lines 20 to 32 and insert—
("(2) After section 23 there is inserted—
"Acts of the Scottish Parliament etc.
23A.—(1) This Act applies in relation to an Act of the Scottish Parliament and an instrument made under such an Act only to the extent provided in this section.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, sections 15 to 18 apply to—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament as they apply to an Act,

(b) an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament as they apply to subordinate legislation.

(3) In the application of those sections to an Act and to subordinate legislation—

(a) references to an enactment include an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and

(b) the reference in section 17(2)(b) to subordinate legislation includes an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

(4) In the application of section 20 to an Act and to subordinate legislation, references to an enactment include an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament."
(3) In Schedule 1 (words and expressions defined), the following definitions are inserted in the appropriate places—
""Act" means an Act of Parliament."
""Enactment" does not include an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 226K is technical. It seeks to clarify the provisions contained in paragraph 14 of Schedule 8 which amend the Interpretation Act 1978 so that it deals with the interaction between Westminster legislation and Acts of the Scottish parliament. That is the new Section 23A.
The final part of the amendment is new and provides a general rule, as a starting point, about references to Acts and enactments in future Westminster legislation. It inserts two definitions in Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act which provide that the terms "Act" and "Enactment" will not include Acts of the Scottish parliament or instruments made under an Act of the Scottish parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have some recollection that yesterday when the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, used the words "technical amendments", my ears pricked up. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that when he uses similar words my ears similarly prick up.
This is a substantial amendment and the fact that it comes at the eleventh-and-a-half hour of the debate on the Bill is a matter of surprise. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment is to provide that a substantial number of the sections of the Interpretation Act 1978 should have no application to the construction of Acts of a Scottish parliament. That is contrary to the impression that I have gained throughout our debates on the Bill.
Earlier today, in anticipation of this debate, I went to the Library and obtained a copy of the 1978 Act. Having done so, I can advise the House that it is instructive to look at the rules of construction of statutes which are disapplied by this, at first sight, minor amendment but which in my view is a very substantial amendment.
Section 1 of that Act states:
"Every section of an Act takes effect as a substantive enactment without introductory words".
Section 4 then states:
"An Act or provision of an Act comes into force—

(a) where provision is made for it to come into force on a particular day, at the beginning of that day;

(b) where no provision is made for its coming into force, at the beginning of the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent".

Section 5 of the Act refers to Schedule 1, which gives assistance on how certain words fall to be construed. They include words which we discussed in a little detail earlier in the proceedings on the Bill when debating the provisions of Clause 25; namely, the meaning of the words, "oath" and "affidavit". Those words are defined by Schedule 1 as including affirmation and declaration. The schedule also includes useful assistance on how one interprets other terms such as "Lord Chancellor", "Sheriff' and "Writing".
I move on now to Section 6, which states that,
"unless the contrary intention appears—

(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine"—

perhaps I may refer back to the amendment that we discussed yesterday on the Queen's Printer in Scotland in that respect. Section 6(c) then refers to the fact that,
"words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".
The legislation includes provisions dealing with how one construes references to distance, time and other matters in the construction of statutes.
I could go on, but I do not believe that it is necessary for me to do so. It is clear that Amendment No. 226K disapplies a substantial number of the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 from the construction of Acts of the Scottish parliament. I personally have some concern as to the competency of that parliament enacting an interpretation Act that would bind the English and Northern Irish courts in the interpretation of Acts of the Scottish parliament. It would undoubtedly be within the competence of the Scottish parliament to bind the Scottish courts, but, in view of the provisions of Clause 28(2)(c) as currently drafted, it might be possible to argue that Clause 28(2)(a) would preclude the Scottish parliament from laying down rules which would bind the English and Northern Irish courts as to how they construed such Acts.
However, much more importantly, I believe that is a very serious mistake to lay down on the face of the Bill in the stark terms set out in the amendment a divergence of approach to the question of construction of statutes, which is a necessary consequence of the words which the draftsmen have used on this occasion. As I have said on more than one occasion, after devolution when members of the Scottish parliament have been elected and the latter is up and running, the man in the street in Scotland will wish to treat the legislation coming from this Parliament in exactly the same way as he treats legislation coming from the Scottish parliament. I believe that the courts should follow a similar approach. Therefore, I must express grave concerns
256
about the amendment, which, as I construe it, seeks to disapply a major share of the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I think perhaps it might be convenient for me to add a few words to what the noble and learned Lord has said. As I read the amendment, its effect will be quite dramatic so far as concerns the Interpretation Act. Indeed, the only sections of that Act which would continue to apply to Acts of the Scottish parliament are Sections 15 to 18 and Section 20. I believe that that would be the effect of the amendments to Schedule 1, which seem to be a complete reversal of what was, and still is, in the schedule prior to the making of these amendments.
I would be able to understand this approach if the Minister could tell us that one of the first measures which would be introduced by the Scottish parliament was a fresh interpretation Act. While I share reservations as to whether that would be competent as regards the interpretation of measures in courts outside those in Scotland, at least it would indicate to us that the important parts of the Interpretation Act which one would need to use in order to interpret Scottish legislation would be available in the future when Scottish legislation is being interpreted.
An alternative approach might be to build some measure into this Bill which would provide equivalent measures with amendments suitable for the interpretation of Scottish enactments. In any event, there is a further point that troubles me which makes me suggest, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that it might be wise to take this amendment away and bring it back at Third Reading. I am not at all clear why reference has not been made to some of the other sections in the Interpretation Act which might be relevant to the kind of amendment which is being provided for here.
Sections 15 to 18 deal with the repeal of enactments by Acts of the Scottish parliament, and therefore the machinery which the Interpretation Act applies for these repeals is machinery which the Scottish parliament will need. Therefore it is quite right that these sections should apply to the Scottish parliament. Section 20 has a similar effect because it deals with references to other enactments. Again, it will be useful to the Scottish parliament to have the benefit of Section 20. However, I am not at all sure why no mention is made of Sections 22, 23, and possibly 26 and 27, which might also have a bearing on the way in which Scottish legislation might interact with other measures.
These are complicated matters and it is a matter of some regret that this measure has come forward at this stage in the Bill. The interaction between the Interpretation Act and the ability of the Scottish parliament to legislate effectively with the benefit of that measure is of such great importance that I suggest this amendment is worth having a further look at. In any event we need a much clearer explanation as to its effect.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I add a further little worry which has occurred to me. As I understand it, and if the

257
view that has been expressed is correct, Section 5 gives the authority to Schedule 1, so how can amendments be made to Schedule 1 with any effect?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall try to clarify the intention, but because of the importance of this matter if there are outstanding difficulties I shall be happy to take the measure away. However, I shall proceed for the moment. The intention has always been that the Scottish parliament will make its own provisions with regard to the interpretation of Acts of a Scottish parliament. In the first instance the intention is to make transitional provision in applying the Interpretation Act 1978. The idea is to use the power to make transitional provision to apply the 1978 Act to the Acts of the Scottish parliament unless and until the Scottish parliament makes its own provision. If that is satisfactory at this stage, we can keep the amendment on that understanding. If my explanation is not satisfactory, I am content to take it away.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say a few words. I would be perfectly content with the assurance that the transition from the Interpretation Act—which quite obviously deals with measures of this Parliament—was provided for in the way described. I understand that there will have to be some measure which can then be used by the Scottish parliament for the interpretation of its measures. However, it is not simply that point which troubles me. I wish to be sure that the continuing provisions—some of which are in the amendment—for interaction between Acts of the Scottish parliament and Acts of this Parliament are all fully in place. I see some of them but I want to be quite sure that the entire battery of measures that is needed to provide for the interaction between measures of this Parliament and of the Scottish parliament is in place.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, this comes as something of a surprise to me in view of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in Committee on 14th July. He said:
"I see no reason for any difference between construing an Act of the Scottish parliament by the courts and an Act of the UK Parliament'—[Official Report, 14/7/98; col. 248.]
There may be an innocent explanation to this amendment and I fully accept that, possibly to his surprise, the Minister has been faced with a number of fairly searching questions for this time of day. What troubles me is that there appears to be somewhat of a departure from the approach that I understood the noble and learned Lord to advocate, one with which I fully sympathise; namely, that in construing Acts of the Scottish parliament and construing Acts of this Parliament, by and large a common approach should be taken.
When we bear in mind that it will be competent for the Scottish parliament to amend Acts of this Parliament, the idea that one has different rules of construction for different parts of an amended statute
258
depending on where they originated is somewhat mind-boggling. It may make a lot of money for lawyers but it should not commend itself either to politicians or, more importantly, to the electorate.
It may be sufficient if the Minister will undertake to write to those who have contributed to this debate within the course of the next couple of days so that, if it is necessary to return to this matter at Third Reading, that can be done. I do not disguise my concern that, technical though Amendment No. 226K was explained to be, it seems to open up something of a hornet's nest as regards the interpretation of legislation.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be acceptable if at this stage we kept with the amendments, and if I promised to write within the next day or two and we could return to this matter at Third Reading if there are issues outstanding. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226L:
Page 99, line 14, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 15 and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 226M:
Page 99, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("(members") and insert—
("(1) The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) Anything directed to be done, or which may be done, to or by—

(a) the registrar of companies in Scotland by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), or

(b) the assistant registrar of friendly societies for Scotland by virtue of any of those provisions as applied (with or without modification) in relation to friendly societies, industrial and provident societies or building societies,

shall, or (as the case may be) may, also be done to or by the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
(3) Those provisions are: sections 53(1), 54(3), 61(6), 62(5) (so far as relating to the giving of notice), 67(1), 69(2), 84(3), 94(3), 106(3) and (5), 112(3), 130(1), 147(3), 170(2) and 172(8).
(4) Anything directed to be done to or by—

(a) the registrar of companies in Scotland by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (5), or

(b) the assistant registrar of friendly societies for Scotland by virtue of any of those provisions as applied (with or without modification) in relation to friendly societies, industrial and provident societies or building societies,

shall instead be done to or by the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
(5) Those provisions are: sections 89(3), 109(1), 171(5) and (6), 173(2)(a) and 192(1).
(6) In section 427").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to transfer certain devolved functions of the Registrar of Companies in Scotland and the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, who will be an office holder in the Scottish administration.
As a result of the amendment, functions relating to the devolved aspects of insolvency in Scotland will be concentrated in a single office holder appointed by and accountable to Scottish ministers. The Registrar of Companies and the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland will be left with their reserve functions and therefore accountable to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. I trust that noble Lords will see the sense of this approach. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give some brief indication of the provisions in subsection (3)? There is a whole list of them and it is quite difficult to follow them. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord can at least lead us through the main ones so that we can fully understand what is to be devolved.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, there is a great deal of meat in this amendment and I do not pretend to have been able to get to grips with all of it. Perhaps I may raise a small point for the Minister to answer. In this House we have often debated when to use "shall" and when to use "may". But for the first time in my experience in this House I see the phrase,
"shall, or (as the case may be) may"
which seems to be browning the covey somewhat.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, Section 84 (3) refers to resolutions as to the winding up of a company which require to be forwarded to the registrar and recorded by him in accordance with Section 380 of the 1985 Act. Section 89(3) deals with a voluntary winding up, where there is to be a declaration of solvency to be delivered to the registrar within 15 days of the resolution.
Section 94(3) provides that, in a member's voluntary winding up, on completion the liquidator is required to make an account of the winding up, showing how it was conducted, and to present it to a general meeting of the company within a week after the meeting and to send a copy of the account to the registrar, along with a return of the holding of the meeting and its date.
Section 106(3) provides that, in a creditor's voluntary winding up, when the company's affairs are fully wound up the liquidator is to make up an account of the winding up, to be presented at a general meeting of the company and a meeting of creditors. A copy of the account is to be delivered to the registrar of companies within a week.
Section 109(1) provides that in a voluntary winding up the liquidator is to deliver to the registrar of companies within 14 days after his appointment the prescribed notice of the appointment.
Section 112(3) provides that a copy of an order staying the proceedings in a winding up must be forwarded forthwith by the company to the registrar.
Section 130(1) provides that on the making of a winding-up order a copy must be forwarded by the company to the registrar, who is required to enter it in the records relating to the company.
260
Section 147(3) provides that any order of the court assisting the proceedings in a winding up is to be forwarded forthwith by the company to the registrar of companies, who is required to enter it in the records.
There are a number of other provisions. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, could identify which particular provision he is concerned with.
With regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, I seek refuge in the draftsman on this occasion. I suspect that this is a drafting arrangement. I think that in this case the use of the words,
"shall, or (as the case may be) may",
arises from the start of the subsection, which says that,
"Anything directed to be done [shall be done], or which may be done [or (as the case may be) may be done]".
One can see the sense of the draftsman's approach on this occasion.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the Lord Advocate sits down, I wonder whether he could assist us by identifying which of the provisions referred to in subsection (3) are affected by the word "shall" and which by the word "may". As he began this helpful discussion as to what these sections involve, perhaps he could deal with Sections 53(1), 54(3), 61(6) and 62(5). I may be wrong, but I do not think he dealt with them in detail.
Lord Hardie: The noble and learned Lord will be well aware of the provisions in the statute and will know which ones contain "shall" and which contain "may". If he is unaware of those, I shall write to him in due course. Section 53, subsections (1) and (5) relate to the appointment of a receiver in the prescribed form, as the noble and learned Lord will remember, to be delivered to the registrar of companies within seven days of an execution for registration. On receipt of the relevant document and the requisite fee, the registrar has to enter the particulars of the appointment in the register of charges. Section 54, subsections (3) and (4) provide that, where the receiver is appointed by the court, the court's interlocutor is required to be delivered to the registrar for registration by or on behalf of the petitioner within seven days. Again, there is a question of a fee.
I do not know whether there are any further details that the noble and learned Lord wishes to have. I am happy to deal with any particular provision.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be happy to write to me in detail about the fees involved.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am sure that they are much more modest than the noble and learned Lord's fees.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 226N:
Page 100, line 31, after ("definitions),") insert—

("(a) in the definition of "the Crown", after "of" there is inserted "the Scottish Administration or of",M and

(b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Interpretation]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 55, line 30, at end insert—
(""tribunal" means any tribunal in which legal proceedings may be brought").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clause 119 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 57, leave out line 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 229A to 230:
Page 57, line 19, column 2, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 105(5A) and").
Page 58, line 16, at end insert—
("Scottish public authority with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part III of mixed functions or no reserved Schedule 5") functions
Page 58, line 21, at end insert—

("Tribunal

Section 118(1)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 121 [Transitional provisions etc.]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 230A:
Page 58, line 37, after ("53(2)") insert ("and (3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Commencement]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 230B:
Page 58, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("Sections 18 to 39, Parts II to V. sections 109 to 116 and section 117 (except so far as relating to paragraphs 9, 10, 17 and 21 of Schedule 8)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this, let us be frank, rather cryptic amendment is to bring the parts of the Scotland Bill which deal with elections into force immediately on Royal Assent. That is not to say that the elections themselves will take place immediately on Royal Assent. There will be a period of time between Royal Assent and the calling of the elections. It is just that this provision enables those aspects of the Bill dealing with elections to be brought into effect immediately after Royal Assent. Normally, provisions should not be brought into force less than two months after Royal Assent, which in this case would mean mid-January 1999. As the elections are to be held on 6th May 1999, this leaves little time for the detailed elections provisions under Clauses 11 and 14 to be put in place, not least because these are affirmative orders. The amendment therefore brings forward the commencement of the elections provisions allowing the orders to begin their parliamentary passage before Christmas. This, in turn, will ensure that the orders are in place well before the elections, which will be of advantage to electoral administrators and candidates alike. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is a desirable objective.
I should note that there is a small lacuna in the amendment, in that it would inadvertently commence amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 which have been
262
inserted by Amendment No. 226M, which we discussed earlier. We therefore intend to make the necessary correction at Third Reading.
This is the last amendment with which we will deal tonight. It may be of benefit to the House if I indicate briefly a number of areas, in addition to those signalled earlier in debate, in which we may bring forward amendments at Third Reading. These include improving the layout of Schedule 5, the reservation of data protection in Schedule 5, the definition of administrative law, further minor amendments to Schedule 4, the appointment of civil servants by Scottish Ministers, the extension of the protection in Clause 23 to cover former Ministers and civil servants, the Registers of Scotland Trading Fund, the drafting of Clause 48(5), and further amendments in connection with the use of the term "enactment". We shall also be reinstating Amendment No. 204A, which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, identified last night had been omitted from the Marshalled List because of a printing error. We are bringing it back. I hope that that is of assistance to the House. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for that foretaste of some of the amendments that the Government will bring forward for Third Reading. I wonder whether the noble Lord could try to ensure that we get these amendments as soon as possible and, it is to be hoped, before we leave London for the weekend. In this case, I do not necessarily mean that the Government should wait until Friday. Whereas some of us may be here on Friday, other noble Lords may not be. Even if we receive the amendments informally, those of us who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill will be grateful.
As far as I could follow them, I am certain that we will be welcoming many, if not all, of them as responses to points that have been made during the 14 days we have spent on the Bill. One of the interesting aspects of the Bill as it has gone through the House is that many of the points made in debate have been taken on board by the Government and, I suspect, have also led to a rethinking by the Government on other parts of the Bill. We have seen a fair raft of amendments from the Government.
Perhaps the final point I should make regarding this amendment is that those of your Lordships who thought that we were about to escape the Scotland Bill next Monday forever have just been told that before Christmas we will have more happy hours looking at the many orders which will have to be brought forward in order to run the elections. With that pre-Christmas present, I am content with the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord please consider returning to the practice of not having Scottish business on a Monday?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.