Scotland Bill

HL Deb 09 November 1998 vol 594 cc509-22

3.10 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 3 [Extraordinary general elections]:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("and").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 are linked with Amendment No. 1. I tabled these amendments at Report stage but in view of the fact that I had a heavy cold the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate kindly suggested that I should move them at Third Reading.

The amendment raises a general point about drafting on which I believe that it would be useful to have your Lordships' views. If noble Lords will consider Clauses 3 and 5 they will see the point. Clause 3(2) states that, If the Presiding Officer makes such a proposal, Her Majesty may by proclamation under the Scottish Seal"— and there follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). It is not until one reaches the "and" at the end of paragraph (b) that one realises that it should also come at the end of paragraph (a). Similarly, Clause 5(7) states: A registered political party's regional list must not include a person", and there follow paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). One then has to look back to realise that (a) and (b) also end in "or". A similar point arises on the following subsection.

Neither of those are particularly long tabulations. In many cases the tabulation continues to many later letters in the alphabet. What the draftsman has done here is to follow not only the accustomed and established rule of drafting but also the general literary scheme. But it is rather different in the case of a statute in view of the tabulation. Naturally, the draftsman does not want to change an accepted practice. But, for what it is worth, in my view it would be much easier and more consumer friendly if the statute in each case ended in "and" or "or" rather than postponing that conjunction to the penultimate paragraph.

As I said, it is existing practice. However, I believe that it would be of assistance if your Lordships ventured a view as to whether the statute could be made more user friendly in the way I suggest. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I scarcely ever disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on a drafting matter. He is a great expert. Over many years he has been a great supporter of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. However, with regard to the amendments he now proposes one should work on the principle that if words are not necessary it is necessary not to include them.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I knew that someone would say that. I had hoped that it would not come from the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Lord Renton

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has referred to a well established practice; and indeed it is well established. I rather think that it may have prevailed in the drafting of statutes throughout this century. I have not studied closely enough the statutes of the previous century; but I really wonder whether we should add these extra words. I do not believe that it makes the matter more user friendly. I think that it just leaves the provision where it already is.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale will not take it amiss if I tell your Lordships that if we accede to the principle of the amendments to achieve drafting consistency we shall have to add on my count no less than 54 additional words to the Bill.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment explained, the amendments insert the words "and" or "or" into various lists which appear in Clauses 3 and 5. In those clauses, as in the rest of the Bill, the conjunctions are inserted only before the last item in each list. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, observed, it is a well established drafting convention followed in this and many other Bills that in lists such as these the conjunction indicating whether the items on the list are cumulative or alternative is inserted only before the last item.

I accept that the approach suggested by the noble and learned Lord would work equally well. It is a question of style rather than substance. However, as I said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, indicated, we would not support the amendment. We have followed the accustomed and established convention of drafting, and the courts and other users of the Bill will have no trouble determining the intention of Parliament on these provisions.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for raising an issue which, in view of my youth and inexperience, it would have been inappropriate for me to do.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, the matter having been ventilated, I cannot claim universal support. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and my noble and learned friend take the opposite view, it obviously calls for caution on my part. As to what my noble and learned friend said about 54 extra words having to be added to the Bill if the amendment were adopted, I say only that I can guarantee to show that twice that number in the statute are unnecessary. Having said that, and having ventilated a matter which may be considered further academically, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 [Candidates]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 16, at end insert ("and any list of such candidates, submitted to the regional returning officer, shall appear on the ballot paper for regional members in that region.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 has been tabled to complete the discussions we have had on the issue. The Government have conceded the point that on the second top-up ballot the names of the candidates should be put down. The Government did not agree in Committee. However, by Report stage they had changed their mind and accepted the argument we put forward, partly driven by the fact that the Home Office had accepted the argument as regards the European elections and the lists there. The poor Welsh Office has been left behind because its Bill moved into law before the Government realised that it was a good thing to place names on the second ballot paper. However, I hope that they will do so as regards the Welsh elections.

I am grateful that we now have from the Government a sample of three drafts of the layout of the second ballot. It may be useful to have some discussion as to what might be the better arrangement. It is difficult to explain the drafts without the use of modern technology, overhead projectors and holding up the drafts, but none would be within the rules of order. Briefly, one of the ballot papers lists the candidates in vertical order, so there is a list numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The order of the list is very important because it determines who is elected. If only one person is to be elected, it will be No. 1; if two are to be elected, it will be Nos. 1 and 2, and so on. Therefore the ordering is important.

The other two ballot papers list the order horizontally in four columns. They read 1, 2, 3, 4 and then 5, 6 and 7, so that 5 comes below 1. I hope that that is clear to your Lordships who have not seen the draft. However, for my money, because the order is of such importance, I believe that the vertical numbering is the best and most obvious for the electorate to understand.

For reasons unbeknown to me, the officials preparing the draft ballot papers have chosen an interesting way of identifying people. The Conservative Party candidates are known by fruits; the Labour Party candidates by flowers; the Liberal Democrat candidates by trees; and, appropriately enough, the Greens by root vegetables. The Scottish National Party candidates are known by animals; I am not sure Alex Salmond will like that.

Perhaps I may use as an illustration the Labour list. Rose Hyacinth comes at the top. Clearly, the civil servant watches television. She is followed by Daffodil Tulip. It is clear from the vertical ordering that Rose Hyacinth would be No. 1 and that if the Labour Party won one seat, Rose Hyacinth would win. Daffodil Tulip would be No. 2, which is obvious, too. However, the trouble with the horizontal listing is that it is not clear whether Daffodil Tulip or Freesia Crocus would be No. 2—and I believe that I understand the electoral system! I know not what the poor electorate would make of drafts 2 and 3.

Noble Lords will, I believe, want to contribute to the debate. It will be interesting to hear whether Ministers have come to any decision. I believe that the vertical ordering is the most important.

Another important point concerns the draft ballot papers. They will contain the symbols, the emblems, of the political parties if the Registration of Political Parties Bill is passed. It is amazing that in a country which believes it has attained pretty good literacy levels we have to return to what is done in countries where literacy is not high—except in the United States—and put symbols or emblems on the ballot paper. I do not believe that we shall see elephants and other animals, but we shall see symbols.

A problem in respect of the Registration of Political Parties Bill is that while in Scotland the parties can call themselves the Scottish Conservative Party, the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, they will be able to use only one UK symbol. That is not a problem for the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats, but it is a problem for the Conservative Party which in both Scotland and Wales has chosen different symbols from the torch used by the party in England.

I am sure that the Government did not intend to have a go at the Conservative Party when they framed the Bill. I hope that the Minister will contact his colleagues in the Home Office and explain the difficulties which will be caused for the Conservatives in Scotland and Wales and see whether we can resolve the issue before the various Bills, in particular the registration Bill, complete their passage through your Lordships' House this month. I beg to move.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his explanation of why the amendment has reappeared in exactly the same form as on Report. Had he not described it as an opportunity for a debate on the ballot papers, since he is averse to reading his own speeches I should have read his comment as meaning that he was content that the provision was not on the face of the Bill. I assume that he will not be insisting on the amendment but proposes it in order to initiate debate on the ballot papers.

I have not had an opportunity to study the different draft papers, but, from the noble Lord's description, the vertical lists makes considerably more sense. Although I am interested in the choice name of "Mrs. Bucket" to lead the Labour Party, I am not sure whether in standing for the Liberal Democrats I am an oak, an elm or a rowan.

With regard to symbols, the noble Lord dismissed the lack of literacy in this country. I should not be so quick to do so. A substantial number of people in this country have failed to come out of the school system with adequate literacy skills. Even if they are a small minority they should not be disadvantaged. Despite the problem he raised in respect of the Scottish Conservatives' symbol, it is important that symbols appear if they will help people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)

My Lords, it has been useful to touch on this matter again and I am grateful for the points which the noble Lord made. I particularly take the point that the Conservative Party has not used the torch as its symbol in Scotland and Wales. There are two possible interpretations: first, it has already been put to the torch in Scotland and Wales; and, secondly, that in Scotland and Wales it is in a state of total darkness. But that is a matter for the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to raise it in that respect. I shall make a note of his comment.

We have taken no final view on the format of the ballot paper. It is helpful to have noble Lords' observations, which we shall consider. We expect to lay the order around Christmas and that it will be debated in both Houses during January. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to examine the issue again. I understand that a parallel order for Wales has been issued for consultation which contains exactly the same provision we shall be including to ensure that names on the list of candidates appear on the ballot paper. I believe that there is a fair measure of agreement and I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, as I indicated, I tabled the amendment in order to allow a brief discussion on the way the lists might be ordered on the second ballot. As we reached agreement late in the Bill's progress, I am sure that your Lordships do not mind a short Third Reading debate on this important issue. Some of my noble friends from Wales who were present when we first debated the subject will not recognise the position in which we now find ourselves. At the beginning, no names were to appear on the ballot paper, bar the independents. Now we have a much more satisfactory position. I am sure that that has occurred as a result of the argument put forward in your Lordships' House and because the Government listened and accepted them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("a") to end of line 43 and insert ("party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the first day on Report, noble Lords opposite tabled an amendment to provide that the definition of "registered political party" in the Scotland Bill would be a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate agreed to consider whether we should make such a provision. We have concluded that it would be appropriate and Amendment No. 7 achieves that purpose.

Amendment No. 56 is a purely drafting amendment. It inserts the word "political" into paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 3. That provision ensures that standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that in appointing members to committees and sub-committees regard is had to the balance of parties in the parliament. The amendment simply reflects the fact that the kind of parties we are talking about are political parties and not, possibly for the avoidance of confusion and doubt, wild or fancy dress. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, Amendment No. 56 does not need much discussion although it would be interesting to speculate on what other parties there might have been or might have defined themselves. I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord. As regards Amendment No. 7, I am delighted that the Government have listened and taken on board the points I made at the previous stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Regional Vacancies]:

3.30 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 5, line 20, leave out from ("candidate,") to second ("the") in line 21.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a number of discussions about this matter on other amendments that offered different solutions. Having thought about what the Minister said, this is yet another solution. Basically, the problem is this. The second ballot decides on the number of members to be returned by each political party in order to achieve better proportionality in the parliament. If one of those elected to the top-up seats, as they are called, retires or dies, then the next available and still eligible person on the list is returned to the parliament. So there are no by-elections as we know them. There will be by-elections for the first-past-the-post seats, but not for any of the top-up seats.

One of the problems we discussed earlier is what would happen if the list ran out. It may not do so, but in order to prevent it the parties will probably need to put down a full raft of 12 candidates. In the course of four years people may be elected in an intervening election to this Parliament; they may be elected to the European Parliament or they may decide that they no longer wish to be elected to the Scottish parliament. It may be that someone has been elevated to your Lordships' House and did not want to attend the Scottish parliament any more. In those circumstances we might run out of candidates. That would be particularly true if a party did not nominate the full 12 candidates.

I put forward a number of suggestions and I argued against almost all of them myself when I started to think about it. But having listened to the Minister and re-read the debate, I decided that because it was the top-up and the people in the list are nominated by the parties in the first place, there did not seem to me to be any reason why we could not say that if the list runs out and another person is needed because a vacancy has to be filled, then why should not the party nominate someone? After all, that is what the party did initially at election time. It nominated a raft of people in order, so if the list runs out for whatever reason, why should not someone just be nominated? The important thing is that that retains the principal objective, which is to use the top-up seats to bring about greater proportionality than has been delivered by the first-past-the-post system.

Therefore, it seems to me to be wrong in principle not to fill any vacancy on the top-up list of the party. One would not be trying to achieve proportionality. As my amendment suggests, the only way around the problem is to allow the political party to nominate. I do not know whether the Minister will be sympathetic. I hope that the amendment is drafted well enough so that if the Government see the point, even at this late stage, they will accept it. This amendment covers a very unlikely event, but I believe that one of the points about writing legislation is that one should attempt to cover for all eventualities. It would be quite wrong if a party were not to have its full top-up list for the duration of a parliamentary session just because its list of candidates had run out and it had lost a member through death or resignation. I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I have a certain sympathy for this amendment, but I believe that it is stretching a point to suggest that the whole list of candidates will run out. I believe that most people will insist on a full list so it is unlikely that death, disease or resignation, and all the other kinds of things that happen to political people, will mean that the whole list is wiped out.

The other objection I have to the suggestion is that the Liberal Democrat Party will be electing by postal ballot in the order of the list. For the party to nominate someone outside that list would be to do exactly the kind of thing that we have been objecting to; namely, that the public would be electing someone as an MP of whom they have no knowledge except that he had been nominated by the party. It is unlikely that this provision will be needed and there are also the snags to which I have spoken.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I recognise the real anxiety that the noble Lord feels about the possibility of a seat in the parliament remaining vacant if a party's list were to be exhausted. I believe that the noble Lord worries too much on that score. I do not believe that the concern is sufficient to introduce a rather important new principle into the electoral process, as envisaged in Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

To a large degree I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. What we have tried to do and what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has strongly urged us to do, is to make sure that all the names of all the members of the Scottish parliament are placed before the electorate. We have accepted that proposition. By these amendments we are departing significantly from that. In the event of the existing list being exhausted, an individual would be placed in the parliament, but whose name had never have been before the electorate previously with any form of endorsement. That is a dangerous path to follow. On reflection, I hope the noble Lord will have confidence in the fact that, by enabling 12 members on a party list, we are dealing with the problem of replacement and that there is no need to introduce the new principle that someone could become a member of the parliament whose name had never been placed before the electorate. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I suppose I invited my previous arguments about the names being on the list to be played back against me. I suggested that as the list ran out somebody should be nominated by the relevant political party. In my original remarks I accepted that such events were fairly unlikely. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that although I cannot pinpoint it in the many days of debate that we have had, his noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood suggested that he could not see the point of putting up 12 names because they just cluttered up the ballot paper. If a party took that view it is quite conceivable that, over a four-year term, it may well run out of names for a by-election.

At this late stage of the Bill I shall not press the amendment. I thought it worth a try if the Government were prepared to accept that it might be the way to guard against an unlikely situation where a party had to run for the remains of a parliament under-represented when it came to proportionality, which seems to be considered so important by some people. But clearly that is not quite as important as showing all the names in the ballot paper. As I have been arguing for that, I can hardly complain if the Minister uses that argument against me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Presiding Officer]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 9, line 32, at end insert—

("( ) The Parliament may change the title "Presiding Officer" to such other title as it considers appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 24. We had an interesting debate on a number of occasions about this matter. It is like ships steaming towards each other in the fog and passing without actually seeing each other. We have been doing that with the Government on this issue for some time. I thought I should make one last attempt to put forward the principle that the parliament should be left to decide those matters.

The problem is that the Government have chosen two pretty unwieldy titles: one is "Presiding Officer", instead of "Speaker"; and the other is "First Minister" instead of "Premier" or "Prime Minister". They are also proposing "Scottish Executive" rather than "Scottish Government". In this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—who still seems to be driving around somewhere in Africa—and I joined an alliance in an attempt to persuade the Government that that is a fairly daft proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, had a splendid letter from Northern Ireland, where it turns out that the person who presides over the Northern Irish Assembly calls him or herself the "Speaker", and that is on the printed paper.

As your Lordships know, all over the world, especially the English-speaking world, the person who presides over parliaments is called the "Speaker". That has been drawn to our attention with the problems of Newt Gingrich, who does not wish to seek re-election as Speaker of the House of Representatives in America. The word "speaker" has nothing to do with me traditions of the American parliament; its has everything to do with the traditions of the other place. It is an accepted word. We have had this argument a number of times.

I want to be absolutely sure in my mind. The parliament in Scotland will decide—as sure as this is Monday afternoon—that the person who presides over it will be called the "Speaker" and the Ministers will be called "Government Ministers" of the Government of Scotland. My view is that the First Minister will probably end up being called the "Prime Minister". I suggested that if we called him the "Premier" we might get that title to stick, but he will be called the "Prime Minister".

Lord Renton

My Lords, I put forward a small suggestion. Could there not be a compromise which relates to Northern Ireland? Instead of "Prime Minister", which refers essentially to the United Kingdom, could not the word "Premier" be used?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I do not blame my noble friend for not having been present during the many happy hours we had in Committee and on Report. I tried to propose this amendment at an earlier stage and, as always, I was rebuffed, very politely, by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, whose job it is to deal with this particular problem.

Without intruding into the private grief of the Labour Party, I could not help noticing in one media report—it was an electronic media report—the problems that the party was having in Wales. When describing someone to replace the person whom I shall not name, the report said, "effectively the Prime Minister of Wales". I gave a loud cheer and said, "There it is, proof positive".

This is another effort and I hope it is a joint effort with the Liberal Democrat Party. The suggestion is to leave the decision on those matters to the parliament and make it clear that it can use those more traditional titles. At least that will be a step in the right direction. The parliament meets on 1st May and by the end of next year, whether the Government like it or not, the titles will be those that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and myself have suggested. We want to know from the Government that the parliament will not be doing anything illegal and that its members will not be clapped in the Tower if they decide to ignore what this House and the other place insist upon but use the titles that are used in all parliaments around the world. I beg to move.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be unable to find any inconsistency with the Liberal Democrat Party in this case. It is absolutely ludicrous to try to foist on the Scottish parliament names which are unprepossessing, unattractive, not Scottish and not British. The noble Lady and the noble Lord will know the expression "It is bairny" to insist on that. No self-respecting Scottish parliament would put up with it. I believe that they ought to indicate now that the Scottish parliament can call the ministers exactly what it likes, provided it is not rude.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 24 bring us back, again, to the question of whether the Bill should prescribe titles for the key office holders it creates. Noble Lords opposite have made their views very clearly felt on this subject on quite a number of occasions now. The Government's views on this issue are well known by this time and have been gone over during Committee and Report stage at considerable length.

In brief, it is important for the sake of legislative certainty and consistency in the law throughout the UK that the Bill prescribes the titles from the outset. It is important that everyone is clear exactly who is being referred to in this legislation, in future legislation and in other formal documents. As I have said before, this will ensure that there is no doubt about who should be carrying out any duties provided for in the Bill. By prescribing simple and straightforward titles, we hope to ensure there is no confusion between offices and positions so everyone knows where they stand and what their responsibilities are.

That will be particularly critical for third parties outside the Parliament. They will simply want to know that, for example, an official document is what it purports to be, or that a legal case should be raised against a particular person holding a particular office. The Government believe that these titles are clear and unambiguous and suit the purpose. They avoid any risk of confusion with the established titles used at Westminster. I think we are doing a substantial service to all those, very many, people who are likely to have dealings with the First Minister and the executive and the presiding officer, by providing for settled titles in the Bill for those offices.

In view of some of the views expressed by noble Lords in both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches in earlier stages of the Bill, I want to set straight, for the record, some facts about the situations regarding Wales and Northern Ireland. First, Wales. The Government of Wales Act prescribes titles for the first secretary and assembly secretaries. It also prescribes the names of some of the assembly's committees. It does allow the standing orders to prescribe a different title for the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, but I understand that the National Assembly Advisory Group has recommended that the titles should be presiding officer and deputy presiding officer. Those will be specified in the assembly's standing orders, which the assembly can amend with a two-thirds majority.

The Northern Ireland Bill provides for a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in Clause 14, the executive committee in Clause 18 and a presiding officer in Clause 37. There is no doubt that the titles First Minister and Deputy First Minister are now in common accepted usage for both Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about the First Minister in Northern Ireland being called "Premier", I believe that in the case of Northern Ireland the title "First Minister" for Mr. Trimble and "Deputy First Minister" for Mr. Mallon has come into common usage.

The initial standing orders drafted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refer to the presiding officer. Much was made at earlier stages of the fact that it is understood that the members of the assembly who are involved in preparing the standing orders now are considering using a different title for presiding officer. The assembly is, of course, in quite a special situation in having been elected before the Bill is enacted. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the letter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, at an earlier stage of the Bill. I do not know exactly what that letter was. I understood that it was from somebody who said he was an aide to the speaker, and "speaker" was the word he used. However, in front of me I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his official letter, as the presiding officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly is headed, "Initial Presiding Officer", which is the correct title and follows the title in the Bill.

I do not know whether we should compare letters but this is a letter dated 7th September 1998, so it is nothing if not current.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, surely the noble Baroness will not make a law on the basis of letters which are said to have passed between herself and my noble friend Lord Steel?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

My Lords, indeed not, but that was the point I should have liked to make to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, at the stage at which he was waving his letter at me. I am talking about the fact that the Bill makes clear that the title is "presiding officer".

We shall see what happens in the case of Northern Ireland. However, the crucial point—and this really is the most important point that I wish to make to the House—is that there is no difference on that point of titles between the Northern Ireland Bill and the Scotland Bill.

The matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He said: I am told that the Minister of State, in the course of official consultations, has confirmed that the term 'presiding officer' is a legal one and that it is entirely a matter for the assembly to determine what the presiding officer is actually called".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1681.] There is no difference between that and what I said in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, when I said that, it would be possible for the parliament in its standing orders to make provisions about the forms of address to be used in the proceedings of parliament if it so wished. It may choose to use terms other than those prescribed in the Bill within its own proceedings".—[Official Report, 18/10/98; col. 2024.] I then said that the parliament would no doubt wish to consider whether it was appropriate to address someone other than by the legal title and it would also doubtless take account of what became common public usage. I ended by saying that, Ultimately that usage would be a matter for the parliament to decide".—[Official Report, 18/10/98; col. 2024.] We have tried to strike a balance throughout the Bill between prescription and flexibility. Noble Lords will have noted that our general approach has been to prescribe the minimum. It is not always easy to agree where a line should be drawn. However, that is one area where we consider that it is important that there is neither vagueness nor confusion. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness may be alone in believing that there will be no vagueness or confusion. The problem with these debates is that they do not seem to be very important in themselves but they have all to do with the status of the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, although I am not discussing Wales and Northern Ireland. The problem is that in my view, the Government are at sixes and sevens.

Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is not here, but he said when he discussed the letter: I have in my hand a letter with beautiful headed paper from the special adviser to the Speaker".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1669.] My recollection of seeing the letter is that the word "speaker" was written in green print. It was not type; it was part of the headed notepaper. He went on to say: The draft Committee on Standing Orders in the Northern Ireland Assembly provides in paragraph 2 that the presiding officer of the Assembly shall be called Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker and shall be addressed by Members". I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was wrong about that, but I have no reason to believe that he was. I am sure that he is absolutely right.

Just to confuse your Lordships, in answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, said: A partial direct answer is that the parliament would not be able to change these titles by standing orders. However … it would be possible for the parliament in its standing orders to make provisions about the forms of address to be used in the proceedings of the parliament".—[Official Report, 28/10/98; col. 2024.] I should not be surprised if your Lordships were lost by this time because I am fairly lost myself.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, perhaps I may assist. As I understood the Minister, in Wales, the advisory group has advised the use of the term "presiding officer", but of course she concedes that the assembly can call the presiding officer by what ever name it chooses. Is it any different for Scotland? If it is not, that is clear.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I was just about to deal with that. It appears that in any legal documents, those people must be referred to for all time as "presiding officer" and, "First Minister". However, they can be called by everybody—indeed, the media already do so with regard to Wales—"Prime Minister" or "Premier" and "Speaker". If that is not a recipe for confusion, what is? It seems to me that those two gentlemen or ladies will wear two hats: one will be an official hat and the other will be an unofficial hat.

All around the English-speaking world, people are perfectly happy to use the titles "Speaker", "Premier", and "Prime Minister". I am so dissatisfied with those answers and the thought of having the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and myself, in the same Lobby makes me believe that I should test the opinion of the House.

3.55 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Ampthill, L.	Ludford, B.
Balfour, E.	Lyell, L.
Blaker, L.
Blyth, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Boardman, L.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Borthwick, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. [Teller.]	McNair, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Maddock, B.
Bruntisfield, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Calverley, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Carlisle, E.	Mersey, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Milverton, L.
Carnock, L.	Monson, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Craig of Radley, L.	Mountevans, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cuckney, L.	Moyne, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Munster, E.
Davidson, V.
De Freyne, L.	Newall, L.
Dearing, L.	Newby, L.
Denham, L.	Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Dholakia, L.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Dunrossil, V.
Ellenborough, L.	Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Elles, B.	Rankeillour, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Renton, L.
Ezra, L.	Renwick, L.
Fookes, B.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Forbes, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Gainford, L.
Geraint, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Gormanston, V.	Selborne, E.
Grey, E.	Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Harlech, L.	Sharples, B.
Harmsworth, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Harrowby, E.	Stair, E.
Hayhoe, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Headfort, M.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Holderness, L.	Swinfen, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Thomas of Gresford, L.
Hooper, B.
Inchyra, L.	Thurso, V.
Kintore, E.	Tope, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.	Vivian, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Waddington, L.
Leigh, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Wharton, B.
Lindsev and Abingdon, E.	Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.	Islwyn, L.
Amos, B.	Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Jeger, B.
Bach, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Barnett, L.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Berkeley, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Blackstone, B.	Kinloss, Ly.
Blease, L.	Lockwood, B.
Borrie, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Christopher, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Crawley, B.	Milner of Leeds, L.
David, B.	Molloy, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Monkswell, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Dixon, L.	Morris of Manchester, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dubs, L.	Northfield, L.
Eatwell, L.	Peston, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Puttnam, L.
Evans of Watford, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Richard, L.
Fitt, L.	Rogers of Riverside, L.
Gallacher, L.	Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Goudie, B.	Sawyer, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Serota, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Sewel, L.
Gregson, L.	Shannon, E.
Grenfell, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hacking, L.	Shore of Stepney, L.
Hanworth, V.	Simon, V.
Hardie, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Stallard, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Haskel, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hayman, B.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Tenby, V.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Howie of Troon, L.	Uddin, B.
Hoyle, L.	Weatherill, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Whitty, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Ilchester, E.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.3 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the humanitarian crisis in central America, I should like to take this opportunity 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.