:My Lords, before the commencement of

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that, despite the predictions of the Government and those from other sources that the economy is on the upturn, these figures are continuing to rise at a considerable rate? Can the noble Earl tell the House when Her Majesty's Government expect these figures to level out and to start to move downwards?

:My Lords, I am afraid that in modern economies there is little correlation between increased economic activity and increased levels of employment. That is true all over the western world. The principal way in which we can help the long-term unemployed, and unemployed more generally, is by tackling the underlying causes of unemployment, by setting the economy to rights and creating the conditions for growth. In the meantime, we are spending nearly £2 billion a year on schemes of special help for unemployed people who, through no fault of their business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty The Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Zealand to attend the Seventh Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth Parliaments to be held in Wellington from Monday, 9th January, to Wednesday, 11th January, and to take part in a tour of New Zealand which has been arranged immediately thereafter. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Monday, 16th January and Tuesday, 17th January.

My Lords, the numbers unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom in October this year were 1,142,898. With permission I will now circulate a table giving the figures for previous years since 1979.

their own, are caught in the machinery of an economy changing gear.

My Lords, while acknowledging that this is a question that would confront any Government of whatever political complexion, may I ask the noble Earl whether he agrees that, so far as young people are concerned, the heart of the unemployment problem has shifted from school-leavers to those aged between 18 and 25? Is he satisfied that the recent Government announcement of a target of 130,000 filled places in the community programme, which is to run, I understand, for a further two years from October 1984, is a sufficient response to the problem of the 1,140,000 people, as he has just told us, who have now been unemployed for more than 12 months, one in four of whom are aged under 25?

:My Lords, it would be impossible to be fully satisfied, but I am satisfied to the degree that within available resources the community programme does a good job. I can confirm to the noble Lord that about 40 per cent. of all participants in the community programme are in the 18 to 24 age group.

:My Lords, how can the noble Earl say that the health of the economy has nothing to do with the numbers of unemployed? It has a great deal to do with them.

:My Lords, that is not what I said. What I said was that increased economic activity in the modern world is not necessarily reflected in the numbers of the unemployed.

:My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree, especially in view of what he has just said, that the increasing and accelerating growth of technology means that there is no hope whatever of employment for large numbers of people unemployed in this country and throughout the world without a radical new approach to our employment policies? Does the noble Earl not agree that this is a challenge facing the whole western world? Unless we take up that challenge there is no hope whatever, because of the advance of technology. Cannot the Government take the initiative through the United Nations or elsewhere?

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. Nevertheless, demographic factors and the fact that the number of people available for work at any one given period or one given decade shows fairly radical alteration must also be taken into account. What we are trying to do at the moment is to ease the special generation facing very particular problems (through no fault of their own, as I have said) into employment through training and re-training, and through other measures. In the meantime, we also have to see to the internal health of our economy and its competitiveness in world markets generally. I believe that over the next decade this will ease the situation somewhat.

:My Lords, while we clearly welcome any effort the Government make to ease the problem of those who are out of work, especially young school-leavers and others, is it not the case that the argument between the political parties and, indeed, the argument within the Conservative Party itself is that the time has come for the Government to stimulate the economy? Temporary expedients, such as finding something for young people to do for 12 months, are no alternative to, or substitute for, a job which has prospects. Therefore, will the noble Earl apply his mind to the problem which has been put so clearly by Mr. Edward Heath, Sir Ian Gilmour, Mr. Francis Pym, and others of his right honourable friends—namely, that the time has now come for the Government to take a clear step to stimulate the economy by building roads and houses and other parts of our infrastructure so that people can get a permanent job?

My Lords, I do not consider that the spending of £2 billion of public money on training schemes, community programme schemes and the like, are temporary expedients. That is a great earnest of the Government's commitment in this area. I am in no sense against the stimulation of the economy so long as it is recognised that it must be paid for in terms of things which can deflate the economy such as higher rates of interest or higher taxation. I also have the personal experience of having worked in Northern Ireland where enormous sums of public money, have been spent by successive Governments over the years and are still being spent. If the noble Lord's analysis were right, Northern Ireland would now be one of the more prosperous parts of the British economy.

My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that there is a lesson about long-term unemployment buried in today's news from the Scott Lithgow yard on the Clyde?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that the trends in total unemployment in the past four months have been surprisingly encouraging considering that the economy has only recently turned upwards in Britain, and Britain has only recently become competitive and started to regain market share? Will my noble friend agree that this is perhaps because we live in an age of change and the new jobs are coming in new industries in small numbers at a time, while the old industries continue to decline and catch the news headlines?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is encouraging that the overall trend in the rise of the numbers of unemployed has stabilised consistently over the past four months, and that bears witness to the truth of a great deal of what he has said. Nevertheless, of course the numbers are too high. The individual tragedies involved cannot be underestimated, and that is why the Government are spending the amount of money that they are on the special programmes and other schemes that I have mentioned. I also agree with my noble friend that it is very important for us in Parliament to give clear signals to this political economy that future employment levels will come in smaller batches than we have known since the war.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the basic philosophy of capitalism in my lifetime has always been to have an unemployed market so as to keep the men quiet for fear that their jobs will be taken? Is this not a continuation of a capitalist economic policy?

:My Lords, it is at least interesting to look at the very severe unemployment problems that exist in the non-capitalist economies such as China and Soviet Russia.

My Lords, in view of the Minister's comment on Northern Ireland, will the Minister review the position of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's report which stated that the level of public spending reflects the degree of economic activity? If there had not been public spending in Northern Ireland to the degree that there has, would the noble Earl agree that the position would now be even worse?

My Lords, I do not disagree with that analysis at all. What I was trying to deal with by way of illustration was the simple fact that if large sums injected into the economy, in terms of public spending, could correct the economy, then Northern Ireland would have a pretty healthy economy.

:My Lords, will my noble friend consider, from the Government's point of view, that there might be advantage in dealing with this problem by using not purely the material and financial yardstick by which to judge it, but sometimes to judge it by the human consequences which employment brings on the people of this country?

My Lords, that is precisely why levels of taxation in this country are already high—too high in my view—so that those of us who are fortunate enough to be in employment can make a contribution towards the plight of the unemployed.

My Lords, I know that the noble Earl must be aware that a large number of the people who are unemployed were formerly employed in the public sector. Therefore, will he urge Her Majesty's Government to respond to the overtures of both the CBI and the trade union movement—the TUC—to reflate the public sector in order to get jobs moving in that sector and get these appalling unemployment figures moving downwards?

My Lords, I am most happy to take that point on board so long as the noble Lord, for his part, also looks into the employment consequences of higher rates of interest, higher taxation and higher rates of inflation.

:My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government training schemes, to which he referred, will also cater for octogenarians, many of whom find it impossible to get a job or to live on their pensions?

My Lords, the very fact that the noble Lord is able to put that question to me shows that he is usefully employed.

:My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that considerable sums are now being received—

Order, Order!

:My Lords, the next Question has been called. We have had a good run on Lord Dean's Question, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will let us move on.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, it is the Government's intention to withdraw the £1 note from circulation in due course once the public have had time to become accustomed to the £1 coin. The need for a coin results from the way the £1 note deteriorates now that less frequent replacement is feasible. As the £1 coin becomes more familiar the public should find little difficulty in distinguishing it from the 20p coin which is of a different shape and colour, and is also noticeably thinner and lighter than the £1 coin.

:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that many cashiers find that when giving change for larger notes they are asked for pound notes and not for coins? If the paper wears out unduly fast, have the Government given consideration to substituting a plastic pound note?

My Lords, I am aware of many representations which have been made about the £1 coin. The fact remains that the main impetus for the introduction of the coin was the increasing treatment of the note as if it was a coin: it is kept in tills; it is not returned to banks by traders, and so it is not possible to replace it with the frequency that is desirable in order to keep the note in proper condition. As regards plastic notes, as my noble friend will be aware. the Isle of Man has recently introduced a plastic £1 note. Evaluations by the Bank of England suggest that plastic notes are not a suitable alternative to paper notes or, in the case of the £1, to the coin. They are not as secure from forgery as paper notes. For that reason we do not propose to go ahead with any idea on that line.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the weight of these coins is so heavy in one's purse or wallet that I have already worn through one, and that they also fall out of my husband's pockets? In view of inflation, it is very expensive both to replace the trousers and to replace the wallet.

My Lords, I do not have as many £l coins in my pocket as the noble Baroness, and I suggest that she invites her husband to change his £1 coins for a £5 note.

My Lords, yesterday during the Second Reading debate on the Cable and Wireless Bill we heard that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to give the people what they want. Is my noble friend quite sure that they want this coin?

My Lords, extensive consultations established a demand for the £1 coin, and in some anticipation of my noble friend's question both yesterday and today I have conducted my own private survey round your Lordships' House, and I have found that it is 50–50 in favour.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the new –1 coin is now being called a "Maggie" because it is hard, it has rough edges and pretends to be a sovereign?

My Lords, I was not aware of that, but at another time I could tell the noble Lord a similar story in relation to the 50p piece, which I think was introduced by his party when they were in Government.

:My Lords, will the Minister agree that this coin is disliked not because people are unable to get used to it and not because of their reactions to it, but because they just do not like it? Will the Minister not agree that we should continue to take soundings for a little longer and keep the £1 note, which is popular. for a little longer?

My Lords, as I said, no announcement has been made about the point at which the £1 note will be removed from circulation. However, I think it is important to bear in mind that the fact that, apart from anything else, it costs quite a lot of money to keep the £1 notes in circulation. A £1 note lasts for about 11 months and a £1 coin for about 40 years.

:My Lords, can my noble friend say for how long the Americans keep a one dollar bill in circulation?

My Lords, I cannot speak for the Americans from this Dispatch Box.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they expect and hope that British goods will be bought whenever they are the best, the most competitive and offer value for money. For the past three and a half years we have been vigorously pursuing a major policy initiative aimed at encouraging the public sector to use its purchasing power in a positive manner to help develop and maintain suppliers' competitiveness.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most helpful and encouraging reply. Does he agree that, if we show confidence in our own products when the price and quality are right, people overseas are more likely to follow our example and buy British, and thereby help the export trade?

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. The answer is, Yes.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the nationalised industries have achieved a remarkable success in purchasing on a competitive basis from this country the vast bulk of their supplies, averaging over 90 per cent? In the case of the National Coal Board, which I had the honour of serving together with the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, the industry achieved even more than that. Would the noble Lord kindly indicate to us, in percentage terms, what success has been achieved by Government departments and agencies directly responsible to Government in the purchase of goods produced in this country?

My Lords, the noble Lord shot my fox because I, too, have the figure of 96 per cent. for the industry which he served with such distinction. On the noble Lord's second question, about the percentage of British goods bought by the private sector, I understand that it is in the region of 90 per cent.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the "Buy British" campaign, initiative or appeal also includes goods and manufactured products produced in Northern Ireland? Given the elements of price, delivery, quality and the statutory requirements, will he not agree that there is an urgent need to have some sort of appeal mechanism at ministerial level, so that enterprises that have tendered for products or goods and have been overlooked, or which consider that they have been overlooked or bypassed in favour of some foreign product, may appeal at ministerial level for their goods to be reconsidered?

My Lords, I shall see whether I can obtain any information about the percentage of orders that are placed in Northern Ireland. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government are indeed monitoring the situation, and are very aware of the efforts which are made by British industry to sell to nationalised industries. Indeed, the public purchasing initiative is one of the arms of the Government in this particular area.

My Lords, in the privatisation measures which the Government are now proposing, are they taking into account the outstanding record of the nationalised industries in supporting British industry?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is a little wide of the answers that I have been giving.

My Lords, recently I ordered some peat for my garden and was astonished to find that it came from Moscow. Would it not be better if it came from Northern Ireland?

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point. If she will give me the details, I shall see what substitute can be arranged for Moscow peat.

:My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to address his mind to the question put to him by my noble friend, which was not about the private sector but was about the percentage of goods purchased from British sources by Government departments and other agencies for which the Government are responsible? Can the Government say what that percentage is?

My Lords, I am sorry, but I should have said in my original Answer that other nationalised industries were in the region of 90 per cent. If I can obtain any further information on a detailed basis, I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, just as my Question was intended to cover goods made in Northern Ireland, so also does his Answer?

:My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's assistance.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Taylor was perfectly in line with the Question on the Order Paper, because it says quite distinctly:

"including nationalised industries, local authorities, private industry and individual citizens"?

Will the noble Lord now answer the question?

:My Lords, my noble neighbour is, I think, making a mountain out of a molehill. His noble friend asked about privatisation, not about private industry.

My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government encourage the police forces to purchase British cars instead of German cars, which I understand they do?

:My Lords, that, I would think, is a matter for the police forces concerned, and of course the police forces must make their own decision on that.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is important not only that people should buy British but that we should all be able to say, as we did before the war, that British is best? Is he aware that the only way that that can be done is for the Government to change course and to stimulate the economy and find jobs for people who will produce the best?

My Lords, on the contrary, the Government's policy is to encourage British industry to see that things are the best on quality; and on delivery, technology and international competitiveness—D, T and I, which spells out the department for which I answer.

:My Lords, would the noble Minister care to go upstairs and see in one of the corridors a duplicating machine upon which there are piles of paper indicating that it was made abroad?

My Lords, I should be interested to see the corridor afterwards at the noble Lord's behest.

My Lords, may I refer back to the question of my late noble friend who asked, if I understood him properly, what would be the effect of privatisation of nationalised industries which are at the present moment buying British? Surely that is something to do with the Question?

My Lords, I cannot see that privatisation would have any adverse effect upon their purchasing policies.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the response in so far as it refers to the White Paper Rates has already been considered. It is not clear as to whether or not this document is the official view of SAUS. It certainly does not share the Government's commitment to the need to protect ratepayers, to reduce public expenditure, and to achieve the Government's overall economic plans. The more recent response, which combines these comments with observations on the proposals in Streamlining the Cities, is currently being considered.

:My Lords, can we assume that the Government and the noble Lord welcome the observations of these distinguished academic individuals? On the very day on which the rate capping proposals of the Government are to be published, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the conclusions in the report in respect of rate capping, which indicate that there will be a significant increase of central control over local government? Lastly, in respect of the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties has the noble Lord noticed that so far as the case in the White Paper is concerned the report says that it is totally unconvincing, ill-prepared, and wholly unjustified?

My Lords, I had noticed that, but in fact the signatories to the document clearly do not share the Government's view of the need to contain public expenditure within what the country can afford. But we have that view and we were elected on the basis of it. As to the other references to the abolition, and so on, clearly the noble Lord and those who put their names to this paper have a totally different view from that of the Government and certainly from mine.

My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that it is perfectly possible for the Government to maintain their mistaken policies about limiting Government expenditure without dismantling big city government?

My Lords, there is no intention to dismantle big city government.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what is an advanced urban study?

:My Lords, there are those who might fairly question that, certainly by reading the conclusions which the signatories to this paper reach. But far be it from me at Question Time to attempt such a definition.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister is not aware that the School for Advanced Urban Studies was set up by the Department of the Environment. Apart from the opposition in the noble Lord's own party and by the local authority associations which has been expressed today when the Bill has been published, is he aware that Professor Jones, professor of government at the LSE, and Professor John Stewart, professor of local government at Birmingham, in a recent paper demonstrated that the rate limitation proposals destroy the basis of local accountability? It was this on which Professor Jones expounded on radio this morning. Can the noble Lord find and let us know of any objective academic or other impartial specialist opinion which supports the Government's proposals and the so-called reasoning in the White Paper? If so, we should be grateful if he could let us know so that we can read it and find Out from whom and where it comes.

My Lords, the noble Baroness pleads in aid the cause and the writings of the academics. I prefer to plead in aid the needs of the people who pay the bills at the end of the day.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a natural mnemonic for the School for Advanced Urban Studies is "sauce"?

I pronounce it "sowse", my Lords.

My Lords, the Minister seemed to dismiss my noble friend's question as to whether he is aware that the general attitude of this report is also reflected by the three local authority associations. As there was a White Paper seemingly for consultation, what notice have the Government taken of the wholesale rejection of the Government's White Paper by the three local authority associations?

My Lords, I have to repeat something I said a moment ago, that the one group of people who do not reject wholesale the Government's proposals are the mass of people throughout the country, businesses and individuals, who have to pay the bills at the end of the day.

My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is the Minister really saying that these proposals are based on ignorance rather than knowledge and experience—that one should just take the objective and view of keeping down rates—and that the proposals do not make financial, social, or economic sense?

:My Lords, the noble Baroness makes her own judgments as to what the proposals mean. I would only say that the criticisms in this particular report, or paper, are based largely on value judgments which, at the end of the day, are clearly political in character.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on rate support grant 1984–85, Wales. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on British Shipbuilders: Britoil contract.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time for a Tuesday of 7.30 this evening. The Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Somerset House Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

:My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:

This amendment would weaken the emphasis on the need for the Scottish Tourist Board to obtain consent for its activities outside the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will recall our discussion at Second Reading of the policy underlying the requirement that the Scottish Tourist Board should obtain the Secretary of States's consent before it exercises its overseas promotion power. I referred then to the broadly similar provision already applying to the Scottish local authorities and to area tourist boards, and I explained that through the consent procedure the Secretary of State is able to ensure that there is no wasteful overlap or duplication of effort.

A similar purpose underlies the consent procedure in this Bill: we wish to ensure that any overseas activities undertaken by the STB in practice complement the British Tourist Authority's promotion efforts for Great Britain, and that the overall Great Britain effort by BTA remains properly co-ordinated. To achieve this, the Secretary of State has to be informed of all STB overseas promotion proposals and check their compatability with BTA's plans. In practice, We expect the board to submit an annual programme of detailed proposals for approval, enabling the Secretary of State to consider the Board's plans largely in one coherent package.

As Clause 1 is currently drafted, it is perfectly clear that the Scottish Tourist Board cannot properly exercise its overseas powers without the Secretary of State's consent. The use of the word "only" is perfectly natural in ordinary English, and by including it the policy intention—that the Scottish Tourist Board should invariably seek the Secretary of State's approval before carrying on overseas activities—is reflected with maximum accuracy.

Omission of the word "only" would I believe make it less clear that consent is necessary on all occasions; and it might imply that the obtaining of consent is of less importance. While I repeat that there is no intention to exert the power to give consent in a heavy-handed manner, we feel that it is important to ensure proper co-ordination by following the procedures suggested. It seems to me altogether fairer that our policy intention should be conveyed as unequivocally as possible; and I hope that on reflection the noble Lords may be persuaded that their amendment should be withdrawn.

:I think that anything that has been said by the noble Lord confirms me in my attitude regarding the meanness of the concession that has been given. What is the Minister saying? He says that if we leave out this word it will not be sufficiently clear that we mean to tie down the Scottish Tourist Board to get the consent with all the other things that apply to it. The Lord Advocate is here. He is a legal man; he will deal with the more difficult legal problems that will arise in relation to Scottish roads, but can he bring his legal mind to hear on this point? Would it greatly affect the sense of the clause if we left the word "only" out? It would then say that it had to be done "with the consent…of the Secretary of State". What is the advantage of putting in the word "only"? My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove is quite right. The Government are being grudging and mean about the whole business of giving this new power, small as it may be, to the Scottish Tourist Board.

May I remind the noble Lord that this is the one Tory manifesto commitment that has been carried out. This was included in the manifesto. Noble Lords from England, and even those from Scotland, may find that this is news to them. Here is a Tory Government carrying out for Scotland a Tory manifesto commitment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, will give us the benefit of his wisdom on this matter. He will remember what he demanded. I will read it again:

"We recommend very strongly, therefore, that the Scottish Tourist Board should be given overseas promotional powers in its own right, and be solely responsible for promoting Scotland abroad, after consulting district councils. (In saying this, we reserve the position of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as we make clear in paragraph 154).

In fact that reference to the Highlands and Islands Development Board is because it has more power in promoting tourism for the Highlands abroad than has the Scottish Tourist Board. At present the Scottish Tourist Board has none, but we are now bringing it up to the level, so we were told, of the councils and the area tourist boards.

I think it is offensive to put in this word "only" when it is unnecessary. I object to the principle of the cabining and confining of the Scottish Tourist Board as has been done here, but the Government have put in the word "only" and that is tautological and unnecessary. As for the Minister's telling us what we all know, that if we took it out it would weaken the power and the hold that the Secretary of State will have on this tourist board, does the Minister believe that this is necessary, or is he just reading a brief? May I tell him that he is a Minister of State? It is time he realised his power and told the civil servants that he would exercise the privilege of power and say that this is an unnecessary word and why should we carry on wasting the time of this noble House over this kind of thing? There is plenty of that in the next Bill, but here it is probably much more serious. I hope that the Minister will think again about it.

I am not a lawyer. This is a fairly commonsense bit of law. If one leaves the word out it makes no great difference. We are told that the reason why it is there is to make it clear that they are going to have no independent power—which was what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart sought, an independent position for the Scottish Tourist Board, one that we have been asking for for years. We were lucky to get a Scottish Tourist Board. I think it was in 1967. I was one of the sponsors of the Bill. It was a United Kingdom Bill and not a purely Scottish one, although we had things in the Bill that did not apply to England or Wales or they do not require any legislation for the changes that are going to come over them.

When it was announced by the Government in a press statement that they were going to give this power to the Scottish Tourist Board, we had laudatory leaders in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman. All the papers were so startled by the fact that the Government were keeping a commitment that they forgot small print. But the small print was not there until the Bill came out. At the present time, we are told, the British Tourist Authority spends £2 million on behalf of Scotland. We have been told—and we are grateful to the Minister for telling us this at Second Reading—that with this new great venture, this commitment that has been accepted gladly by the Government, the Scottish Tourist Board are going to be allowed to spend £200,000 if they get the consent of the Secretary of State and if the Secretary of State has consulted the British Tourist Authority. And just to make sure of these things, there is put in this word "only".

How miserable can the Government get? When a Government behaves like this, no wonder the noble Lord is in this place. Well, he will be used to the Government blowing the trumpets of what they are going to do followed by the sad realisation that they are not going to do very much at all; it should be engrained in him by now. But it is sad that he should come along and read to us this rubbish as to why the word "only" should be there. The word "only" is completely unnecessary and is offensive. Unless the noble Lord has something further to say I think we should divide the Committee on this.

I never cease to be amazed at the transformation which can come over a Member of Parliament—whether in this place or the other place—when he moves from one side to the other. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who had a distinguished parliamentary career in another place, was responsible for a great deal of Scottish legislation. He was noted as one who hounded the draftsmen in order to get Bills exactly as he wanted them—and rightly so. I think that we can assume that any Bill for which the noble Lord was responsible received a very high degree of scrutiny. Therefore he will not be surprised that I have in front of me a copy of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. Nor will he be surprised that in that Act there is stated:

"The powers specified in the foregoing subsection shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary of State".

I should have thought that the difference between the noble Lord's "only" and the "only" that he is suggesting should be deleted from this Bill is really not of great relevance.

I think that the Committee will agree that the reasons which I have given for not accepting the amendment are compelling. There is no doubt that the object of this exercise is to ensure that there is no duplication of effort between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority but that their objectives which are the clear objectives to promote tourism for GreatBritain—and particularly for Scotland—are complemented. I believe that what we are doing in this Bill—and I will not be drawn at this stage into the question of the finance, the £200,000—is by far the best way of achieving for Scotland the advantage of individual identification and the promotion of that identification by the Scottish Tourist Board along with the benefits of promotion in a Great Britain scene which we can obtain through the activities and efforts of the British Tourist Authority.

I do not think that we should waste too much time on this amendment. I do not think that the case for it has been made by noble Lords opposite, and with the greatest respect—and I fully appreciate their interest and their wish to discuss the Bill at Committee stage—I suggest that they do not have a strong point in this amendment and I hope that they may feel that they can withdraw it.

:We on these Benches think that it is perhaps not as strong a point as some which come later; but, equally, we think the Government might as well have given way on this matter. With that strong position that we have taken up, I will say no more.

It was a pity that the noble Lord had not said that before we had the second "no" from the Government. He must learn to use his powerful influence—his weighty influence—at the right time. I must come back to this attack on what was said in the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. If the noble Lord drags in this very red herring then I have to make some comment on it. He will remember that that red herring, that Bill, gives very considerable powers to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The noble Lord was not there at the time. He was only a very temporary sojourner in the other place compared with some others that I know. If he had been there, and coming as he did from the Highlands, he would probably have been as appalled as I was at the fact that this wonderful Bill which everybody wanted was castigated by a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (who is now in this House) as Marxism run wild. It was straight from Karl Marx. You can understand what a reasonable fellow I was when I said, "It will only be put forward with these powers used and exercised with the consent of the Secretary of State".

Now let us have a look at this Bill before us. There is nothing very Marxist about this one. It is a very different set-up. There is only one limited little power to spend as far as we know at the present time. I can understand him not wishing to go into the finance of the £200,000. So that is the answer to that one. Surely, when the Government are trying to be generous, trying joyously to meet a commitment which they gave to the people of Scotland—a commitment which the people of Scotland did not want anyway from them, judging by the results—they could have done a little better than this. I think that the real question is whether it is necessary to be in the Bill. It is a matter of simple drafting.

How does the Bill read if the word is not there? At present it reads:

"…shall exercise the power … to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom only with the consent (which may be given from time to time…) of the Secretary of State…".

It is a case of "only with the consent of" or

"…shall exercise the power with the consent…".

That is what we are arguing about. That is the great matter of principle on which the researchers have been delving into almost every speech I have ever made: they may even have gone hack to 1946, for ought that I know, in respect of this. Is it really worth arguing about?

It is up to the Government to justify what they have done, and if there is something tautological and unnecessary in a Bill I am all for getting rid of it. I love interruptions but I like to hear them. Noble Lords will have to break from their usual custom of speaking from sedentary positions and I hope they will do it without covering their mouths with their hands. But I quite welcome them to get up. I know they do not like it, but this is a fact—the word "only" is unnecessary and, being there, is purely and simply offensive. I will give the Government time to think about it. I will put the same amendment down at the next stage, hoping that between now and then they will reconsider the matter and maybe find some better arguments for its being there.

Having listened to my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and also to the reply from the noble Lord the Minister, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before it comes up at Report; otherwise we will put the amendment down again at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

:The Government are concerned to ensure that any overseas activities proposed by The Scottish Tourist Board will complement the British Tourist Authority's promotion efforts for Great Britain; that there is no duplication of effort between the two bodies; and that the overall Great Britain promotional effort by the British Tourist Authority remains properly coordinated. This amendment would remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority on the Scottish Tourist Board's overseas promotional proposals. The requirement on the Secretary of State in subsection (2) to consult the British Tourist Authority will ensure that the Authority has a voice in the shape and structure of the activities which the Scottish Tourist Board proposes to undertake overseas. It is entirely appropriate that this should be so. The British Tourist Authority will continue to be the organisation with primary responsibility for the promotion of Scotland overseas. Nothing in this Bill is designed to alter that in any way. What we propose is that the Scottish Tourist Board should supplement the British Tourist Authority's efforts. If the two bodies' activities are to dovetail, it is crucial that the BTA, the lead body, be given the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Tourist Board's activities. Scotland, after all, is to be marketed as part of Great Britain as well as in its own right. This is not, of course, to say that the British Tourist Authority will dictate what the Scottish Tourist Board should do overseas. The final decision on the Scottish Tourist Board's activities abroad will rest with the Secretary of State, who will take a view on the basis of all the advice available to him, including that of the British Tourist Authority.

I do not anticipate that the requirement of the Secretary of State to consult the BTA will cause delay. The consent provision in subsection (2) is similar to that imposed on local authorities and area tourist boards under the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. The BTA is involved in that consultation process and at no time since the procedure was introduced, some ten months ago, has there been any difficulty about obtaining the British Tourist Authority's comments quickly. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lords will agree that their amendment may be withdrawn.

I must say that the Minister's explanation rather highlights what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, that now we want to oversee the Secretary of State as well and instruct him to consult the British Tourist Authority. Surely to goodness the Secretary of State knows his duty without its being laid down exactly to him. I must say that the argument to the effect that we have to dovetail every single thing and gain the consent of both bodies does look a little thin when you consider that the Scottish Tourist Board are going to be spending £200,000 and they are hardly likely to throw it away and duplicate something that was already being done by the British Tourist Authority. I must say that it appears to me excessive, but it is not, again, a tremendous point. However, I think that the Minister could well remove these lines and improve the Bill and perhaps show a little more trust in the tourist authorities in Scotland and in the Secretary of State for Scotland, instead of hedging them in with every possible definition.

I am very surprised that the Minister of State should have reacted as he did to this amendment, which undoubtedly, I think, would improve the Bill. I particularly appreciated what my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said on the previous amendment, when he was inviting the Minister of State to remember that he was the Minister of State, because when I occupied the position which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, occupies now I was given a very clear mandate from my noble friend (who was then Secretary of State for Scotland) to exercise my discretion on matters where the Bill would be neither impaired nor improved by accepting an amendment. Of course, I was in a different position from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. I did not have hordes of possible votes sitting behind me, and I had to try to be reasonable to the House and carry the House with me. Now he knows that if any of these matters are taken to a Division he will win it. That does not make the argument any better.

I should like to draw his attention to the fact that, while he points out how necessary it is that the Secretary of State should consult the British Tourist Authority before giving his consent to proposals, if the noble Lord goes a little further down the page—and I would appreciate it if he would pay attention to what I am saying and not allow himself to be distracted by his colleagues—he will see:

"(3) Nothing in this section shall—

(a) affect the power of the British Tourist Authority to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Scotland".

There is nothing in that hit saying that, before it exercises its powers. it should consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. But when the Secretary of State wants to consider something. he has to consult the British Tourist Authority.

That indicates to me that my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove are right when they say that the Government give all the impression of having allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce this Bill, but they have done it in the most grudging fashion possible and are seeking to preserve the power of the British Tourist Authority even over the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, would do more honour to his office if he exercised a little more discretion, and did not feel obliged to stick to every word or comma which appears in the Bill before the Committee today.

I think that the Committee will by now be well on the way to agreeing that my noble friend Lord Carmichael must be right or, if not totally right, very nearly right. In parenthesis, let me say that it is a very good thing to see him here. He brings a great deal of expertise and distinction from another place to our deliberations.

What we should consider against this amendment is the Title of the Bill and what the Bill purports to be about. I come here not to cause trouble but to bring peace, but, as I see it, the Bill is intended to enable, to help or to assist the Scottish Tourist Board to do a variety of things. It is not to assist the British Tourist Authority to do things, estimable though the British Tourist Authority may be, and desirable as its information and help might be. The main thrust of the Bill is to help the Scottish Tourist Board to do something and, therefore, I should have thought that anything in the Bill which appeared to hinder the Scottish Tourist Board in carrying out those duties which are written into the Title of the Bill, ought to be looked at fairly closely. If the provisions of the Bill are such as to hinder the Scottish Tourist Board in carrying out any of the duties which the Bill is intended to a lay upon it, we ought to think about that fairly carefully.

I should have thought that if the Bill, in Clause 1(2) which we are considering, insists that the British Tourist Authority ought to be consulted, it might be a good thing. The British Tourist Authority is a great fount of wisdom in all these matters and consulting it might be helpful. But if the duty to consult is laid upon the Scottish Tourist Board, that is certainly an inhibition between the tourist board and the duty which is laid upon it in the Title of the Bill.

The problem might not be great, nor so enormous as to be insurmountable, and we know that Secretaries of State for Scotland can get round these problems with great dexterity and adroitness. But we should think very carefully before we put into the body of a Bill an instruction which, as I see it—and I may be wrong—amounts to an inhibition on the tourist board in carrying out the duty which the Title of the Bill lays upon it.

The Minister of State is a very sensible man. We know that from his previous career in another place. we know it from the time that he has spent with us, and he has done quite a hit of work in that relatively short time. I think that he should pay very great and careful attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and think them over and wonder whether on this occasion Lord Carmichael might be right.

I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend to look at the word "shall". That is really the point which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is making. The Bill is putting an obligation on the Secretary of State. If the British Tourist Authority say, "But you never consulted us about this", and the Secretary of State has given his consent, he is technically in breach of the law. Is this really a very sensible burden to put upon the Secretary of State? I know that this is the very old controversy about the words "shall" and "may", but I should have thought that the word "may" would have been quite enough to cover all that is required. I fully recognise that there must be co-ordination, but it seems to me that this is putting a burden on the Secretary of State which is not necessary and which might land him in quite a lot of difficulty.

:The noble Lord, Lord Ross, quoted some words from the report which we submitted to my noble friend two years ago, and I make no bones about saying, as I said on Second Reading, that I wish that the Government were prepared to go a little further. That is what the report said and that is what I wrote my name to. I am bound to say that I think my noble friend the Minister of State is labouring under a most unfortunate burden from the remarks that were made in another place, when I believe that a Statement was made and the Minister made it emphatically clear that this would mean virtually nothing and would be of little importance to the Scottish Tourist Board. I think that that did an immense amount of harm.

But what I ventured to say in my Second Reading speech was that, since the report was submitted, we have made a certain amount of progress. There was a Director of Overseas Tourism appointed almost immediately to the Scottish Tourist Board. This Bill is giving an ability to the tourist hoard to promote abroad—albeit on a limited scale—and I do not think it unreasonable of me to say that, in the course of the Second Reading, I did not get the support or the acclamation which I think I was entitled to get, in view of what the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Carmichael, have been saying today. They did not say "Great stuff that Stodart Report!" All they said —and I shall quote what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said—was:

"I am glad that we have this new flexibility for the board"—

that is, the Bill as it is written—

"We welcome the Bill…I hope that this will he just the start of something". [Official Report, 29/11/83; col. 601.]

I think it is. I do not have so long an experience of Parliament as the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, but I have come firmly to the conclusion that the mills of God indeed grind slowly. I can only hope that they will grind sure in due course.

:I cannot add a great deal to what I said initially, when I replied to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I will, however, try to clarify one or two points which may not be fully appreciated by the Committee. First, the British Tourist Authority does not have to give its consent. The words are:

"the Secretary of State…shall…consult the British Tourist Authority".

At the end of the day, the decision about which activities the Scottish Tourist Board engages in overseas is the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no question of the British Tourist Authority having to give its consent.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk put forward the argument that we have had on so many occasions in both Houses about "shall" or "may". There are many examples of a Secretary of State being placed under an obligation to consult any number of other bodies with a view to achieving a better result in the case of the matter under consideration. This obligation does not apply just to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my noble friend is aware, there are many other instances where Secretaries of State are required to consult. I cannot really believe that by making this amendment we shall improve the Bill. The requirement is perfectly reasonable, and is well precedented.

I emphasise, because I am quite sure this point has not been fully appreciated (I come back to the first point which I made in my earlier remarks), that there is absolutely no question of the BTA having to give its consent, but it is right and reasonable that the BTA should be in the lead. As I explained earlier to the Committee, the BTA spends a very substantial sum of money upon helping to promote Scotland—a very much larger sum of money than it is intended that the Scottish Tourist Board will spend in order to supplement the efforts of the BTA. So it is reasonable and in the best interests of Scotland that the BTA should take the lead. With the BTA taking the lead, Scotland will get the benefit, not only of its own promotion through the Scottish Tourist Board, but also of the British promotion which the British Tourist Authority carries out on its behalf. Far from doing anything to weaken that situation, I believe the fact that it will be strong and secure will be in Scotland's best interests. I do not believe that the amendment does anything to improve the position, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.

This amendment has already occupied a good deal of time, and I hesitate to take up any more of the time of the Committee. However, I find it quite astonishing, having listened to the Minister's reply, that he has not received one word of support either from his side of the Committee or from this. The Minister has not said that he will take the matter away and look at it again. I agree with everything that, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in support of the amendment. I find it surprising that in answer to what has been said on both sides of the Committee the Minister should apparently still be reluctant to have another look at the matter, and that he is content to leave the Bill with, apparently, an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority. It is not enough to reassure us by saying that in the Bill as it stands an implied veto is not left in the hands of the British Tourist Authority.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the speech of the Minister of State. There was a good deal of sense in it, but it might be worth his while to reconsider the words -shall" and "may". The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a quite strong point. A great deal of what the Minister of State said about the input of the BTA is correct. We know about that, and we accept it. But the Minister said something which is quite important. Though he felt it was right that the BTA should be consulted, he emphasised more than once that the consent of the BTA was not necessary. It was a key point in his reply. It was a weakness in a very sound reply—a weakness in the following way. If the consent of the BTA were necessary, the word "shall" would not only make sense but would be necessary. But since the consent of the BTA is not necessary the word "shall" is unnecessary and the word "may", as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, makes a great deal more sense.

If the noble Lord the Minister of State were to reflect upon the comments which have been made in this extremely brief debate he would realise that by making the kind of change which has been suggested at a later stage of the Bill—either the large change which my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has moved or the lesser change which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has mentioned—he would be doing the Committee a very good turn.

I had hoped that the noble Lord would give us some pleasing words about the possibility of looking again at this matter. The fact that he dealt so timidly with the previous amendment makes his performance on this one even more disgraceful. He said that there was a precedent for the Secretary of State having to consult. However, they are not necessarily mandatory consultations. On previous occasions I have put down amendments to the effect that the Secretary of State should consult the trade unions. The answer I received was that the Secretary of State would do that, anyway; those words did not need to be inserted. If these words were not included, I am sure that, because this other body is there and does the bulk of the work, they would be consulted.

Because of the praise that the Minister heaped on the shoulders of the BTA, I began to wonder why there was any need for the Bill. If the situation is so good, why have the Bill? The overseas projection amounted to over £200,000. It is quite humiliating that the Secretary of State should be told that he has got to consult the BTA. The Scots are suspicious people. The Government have already announced changes relating to the BTA. One of the changes is that the chairman of the English Tourist Board is to become the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that is all the more reason for being a little more considerate of the feelings of the Scots and saying, "We don't need this".

Of course we realise that there is no power of veto here for the British Tourist Authority; but to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make this consultation is quite unnecessary. The Bill, as we read it, becomes more and more offensive. I do not believe that we want to divide the Committee; I know that my Welsh colleagues want to hear the good news about Wales—if, indeed, that be the proper phrase. I shall therefore advise my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

:I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister of State will have felt the feeling of the House on this particular amendment and realises his own particular isolation. Perhaps between now and Report stage he will reconsider the matter. In order to give him a chance to do so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I believe that this is probably the right moment to take the Statement, move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

"Mr. Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement about the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1984–85. I have this afternoon announced to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance the details of the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council will be placed in the Library of the House. The rate support grant report will be laid before the House after the recess and will be debated in the usual way.

"The main features of the 1984–85 settlement confirm the intentions I announced in November. They must be seen in the context of the Government's continuing commitment to secure reductions in public expenditure. The total of relevant expenditure provision accepted for grants is £1,440 million. This comprises £1,253 million for current expenditure and £187 million for non current items. Aggregate exchequer grant will be £996 million, comprising £138.8 million for specific grants, £31 million for transport supplementary grant. £1.9 million for national parks supplementary grant and £824.3 million for the rate support grants, Domestic rate relief is unchanged at 18½ pence in the pound which costs £25.3 million, leaving £799 million for distribution as block grant.

"The settlement is a fair one. Current expenditure provision, after allowing for the 1½ per cent. reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge from next April and the way in which housing benefit administration costs are now counted for rate support grant purposes, is £57 million or 4.8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement.

"Aggregate exchequer grant at £996 million is £21 million or 2.2 per cent. more than the aggregate exchequer grant provision in the main rate support grant settlement for the current year. More importantly for rating purposes, it is £36 million or 3.8 per cent. higher than the amount authorities have included in their budgets for the present year.

"As in the present year and preceding one, I have set individual authority expenditure targets. Experience has shown that these are helpful to authorities in providing a degree of certainty of grant entitlement for spending at target and clearly exert a significant influence on expenditure decisions. In the light of the views expressed by the two Welsh local authority associations I have retained the same method for determining next year's expenditure targets as that used in the current year. This enables me to withhold grant in an equitable way by ensuring that the amount of grant withheld from an authority is directly related to its own overspending and not to the expenditure decisions of other authorities.

"The targets I have set are very tough for some authorities—but are reasonable for all. Every authority's target gives a cash increase in its current expenditure: the minimum increase is 11 per cent. and the maximum 6 per cent., after making allowance for the reduction in the national insurance surcharge next year and a modest amount of budget drift.

"The grant withholding penalty for spending in excess of targets has been strengthened. As in the present year the amount of grant withheld for excess expenditure up to 1 per cent. above target is 40 per cent. of that excess but above that level the rate of holdback increases progressively with a maximum rate of 90 per cent. for authorities spending 5 per cent. or more above target: this compares with a maximum rate of grant withholding in the current year of 75 per cent. at 6 per cent. spending above target. I am retaining the grant protection arrangements already adopted whereby any authority spending at or below target will be exempted from both grant holdback and close-ending. Similarly the limitation of grant holdback for low rateable resource authorities set in the present year will be retained for 1984–85.

"Block grant will be distributed in accordance with the grant related expenditure formulae agreed by the Welsh local authority associations. I have decided to retain the existing block grant mechanisms which determine the distribution of block grant before holdback and the same safety net for limiting grant losses associated with changes in GRE—a maximum 4 pence loss at the county level and 1 pence loss at the district level.

"There is a continuing need for restraint in local government expenditure. Some progress has been made on this front but there is still some way to go. Since 1978–79 local government current expenditure in Wales has risen by about 2 per cent. more than the increase in costs for the economy as a whole. We must reverse this trend. The realistic increases in expenditure provision and aggregate exchequer grant for 1984–85 should enable authorities to maintain reasonable service standards provided pay settlements are kept down and authorities continue and reinforce their efforts to secure greater efficiency and economy and better value for money. In this respect I note that the latest joint manpower watch figures, which are being released today, confirm that staff numbers in Wales have risen by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September. This alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year, after making allowance for the effect of a grant holdback. Clearly if authorities are to meet their targets for next year this growth of manpower must he reversed. I appreciate of course that authorities have difficult choices of priority to make but that applies in all areas of public expenditure, including my own programmes.

"What happens to rates next year will of course depend on the decisions of authorities themselves. Here I will simply make two points. Authorities can on average increase their net revenue expenditure next year by nearly 4 per cent. and still spend in line with targets. And if authorities spend at this level and apply only half of the balances they have applied in the present year, rate increases would average only 1 per cent. Indeed, rates could fall if authorities applied balances to the same extent as in the current year.

"These figures are a very far cry from some of those which have been bandied about: for example the average rate increase of 17 per cent. reported in the press. I regard this figure as wildly exaggerated and simply do not believe it. It would imply about a 7 per cent. increase in net revenue expenditure which I am sure authorities in general will not seek to impose on their ratepayers. Furthermore, rates this year on average rose by less than 1 per cent. despite earlier local authority forecasts—and forecasts by Opposition Members in this House—that average rate levels in Wales would be into double figures.

"I conclude by repeating that the settlement is a fair and reasonable one. I am confident that local authorities. like the Government, want to keep rate increases down to the absolute minimum. Low rate increases benefit all sectors of the community: industry, commerce and domestic ratepayers alike. It is now for each local authority to take its own spending decisions in the light of the settlement provision and of the effect of their decisions on ratepayers as a whole."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. This is another complex Statement which we shall need to study very carefully. I hope that there will be opportunities in due course to debate this Statement as well as the English and Scottish Statements on the rate support grants.

Is the noble Baroness aware that because of the very high unemployment figures in Wales, local authorities occupy a position of special importance both as employers of labour and as providers of services—for example, home help and other social assistance in communities where poverty is. unfortunately. only too evident at this time? May I point out to the noble Baroness that in aggregate the spending of Welsh local authorities has in fact been economical and very close to the totals allowed for in RSG settlements? Yet the Statement says that the targets are very tough for some authorities. Could the noble Baroness be a little more explicit and say which authorities the Government are going to be tough with and why; what is the reason for this toughness? Does it follow that in some areas the increases in the ratepayers' share of the total will mean rate bills going up substantially?

The Statement seems to me to give the impression—although here I must make plain that I have not yet had an opportunity to digest it as I should wish—that there are going to be no cuts. Could the noble Baroness say what will be the position in real terms if inflation goes up by 4.5 per cent., which I think is the Government's estimate, although there are many who think that inflation will go up by 6 per cent. or more? But even if the figure is 4.5 per cent., does not that mean that in real terms local authorities are going to suffer a cut?

Furthermore, the Government say that the local authorities can save by increased efficiency and economy. Does not the noble Baroness realise that the local authorities are in fact bearing extra costs as a direct result of Government policy? For example, direct labour organisation legislation, publication of information, response to MSC initiatives, sale of council houses—all these are the result of Government policies. Furthermore, there is the transfer of work from the Civil Service offices into the town halls throughout the country and throughout Wales; for example, in regard to unified housing benefits, statutory sick pay schemes, proposals for the alteration of valuation lists, and so on.

The noble Baroness has repeated the Statement indicating that staff numbers in local authorities in Wales have risen—I am quoting now—by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September, and this alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year. Is the noble Baroness aware that these increases are the result of Government policy? This is not a deliberate step by the local authorities, although, frankly, as one who lives in Wales and sympathises with unemployment there, I would sympathise with local authorities for increasing jobs in order to find work for people. Is the noble Baroness aware that the increases to which she has referred are the result of the Government policies to which I have referred?

Is she further aware that the Government's policies must result in real cuts in the standards of services in many areas? Is she aware that the standards of service and efficiency of Welsh local authorities are recognised to be of high quality and that the grant holdback represents a significant increase in the severity of that scheme? Is it not inequitable and harsh that relatively minor variations should result in severe grant penalties of up to 90 per cent? Is the noble Baroness aware that the task of councillors and officials in Welsh local authorities in communities which are suffering more and more as a result of Government policy is going to be virtually impossible and this really is a matter which must be criticised severely? Can the noble Baroness therefore give the House an undertaking that this matter will be looked at very carefully before damaging cuts are inflicted on local authorities with splendid records of public service?

My Lords, I, too, should like to express from these Benches our thanks to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I share almost entirely the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Is the Minister aware that many of the Welsh local authorities believe that their rate bills will have to rise by at least twice the rate of inflation, since the total cash available for local authority services, according to the Statement, is only up by 2.2 per cent. on the £996 million available? That means that there has been a cut from 70.4 per cent. to 69 per cent. in the RSG.

Is the Minister also aware that the Welsh local authority treasurers, after the Secretary of State had had initial consultations with them, did not accept the view of the Secretary of State for Wales, who believed that the average rate rises for Wales would be below inflation? The district councils in Wales believe that their average rate rises will be at least twice the rate of inflation; that is, between 8 and 12 per cent. The only way for them to ease that rate burden, apart from severe cuts in services, is by imposing huge rises in council house rents. Can the noble Baroness tell us how much of the £138.8 million for specific grants is to help to meet the costs of the 60,000 home improvement grant applications already in the pipeline, which the Welsh authorities were hoping they would have some assistance with in the block grant? Is the Minister aware that we shall be watching the results of the RSG settlements, both for Wales and for the rest of the United Kingdom, with considerable interest in the future? I trust that we are not going to be able to say later that the rate support grant this year was deliberately engineered to produce higher than average rate rises in order to get public support for Government measures to come for rate capping.

My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their reception of this Statement. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that this is a very complicated subject. As to the question of a debate on this subject as on the English rate support grant, that would, of course, be a matter for the usual channels, who I am sure have taken note of what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a great many questions, and, if I may, I will try to deal with them in turn. He first of all asked about the increase in numbers of local authority employees in Wales and said that some of these were due to the Government's putting on to Welsh local authorities services which they would not otherwise have had. I would confirm that all the increase in manpower, the 1,000 increase in manpower over this last year, is in the county tier authorities, which have not been affected by the transferred functions that the noble Lord mentioned.

The noble Lord asked me which authorities would be affected, when I said that the effect would be tough on some authorities. In a sense, the answer was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The targets will be very much affected by the element of the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will understand, the changeable element in the targets set, which can be tough on some authorities and less tough on others, is determined by the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. This reflects the exercise of local discretion in setting increases in rents. If authorities decide not to increase their rents in line with the increase in the local contribution assumed by central Government when setting housing subsidy levels, then, of course, the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account will he higher than that component of the authorities' targets. So an authority ought not to be surprised at the way that this is worked and the results that it will have.

As far as the increase in the severity on the holdback is concerned, here the rate of grant withholding is exactly the same as in the current year for authorities spending up to 1 per cent. over their targets, but the penalties increase on a sliding scale rapidly over that percentage. The intention is, of course, to squeeze the overspenders in this particular way in order to keep down the total level of expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that many Welsh local authorities think that their rate bills will rise by very considerable amounts. The noble Baroness will understand from the answer I have already given to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that this will depend very largely on the amount of rate fund contribution that is made to the housing revenue account. We do not believe that the sort of figures that have been talked of will in fact be necessary if local authorities are prepared to consider their costs, which is a very important matter, and are also prepared to use some of their balances. Some authorities did that this year, with some success in keeping down the rate fund contribution.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness concerning consultation with the Welsh authorities I am of course aware of the view that they have taken about the rate support grant and that they are opposed in principle to the expenditure targets, and have said so. But 1 understand that the Welsh authorities pressed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to retain the same methodology for constructing the targets for this coming year as that used in the current year, and that has in fact been done.

The last question raised by the noble Baroness related to home improvement grants. I understand that the proportion out of the £138.8 million is about £40 million.

:My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether the Government can take steps to compensate Welsh towns such as Llanelly, which has suffered grievously through the closure of factories like Duport Steel and the Carmarthen Bay power station, by making special provision for a new infrastructure in these greatly suffering communities to enable industrial enterprise to be recreated in towns which, I am sorry to say, by reason of Government policy, at any rate to a considerable degree, have become rather derelict in the course of the past four years?

My Lords, I fully appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord about Welsh towns. My understanding of the position is that Welsh local authorities have discretion within their spending targets to determine how they spend their money. I would not be in a position to comment on particular capital spending in any particular authority, at least not without notice, but my understanding is that where there are these cases it is possible for the town to use some if its money in that way.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the noble and learned Lord's question was very pertinent and should be taken into account, the Government must look at it in a wider sphere? People are unemployed in other parts of the country because the rate burden, on top of other tax burdens, is making it impossible for firms to give the high level of employment that they could if greater efficiency and more stringency on spending came about. It is not only a matter of local councils, and the effect on certain authorities, but the fact that the overall effect of high rates and high taxes is interfering with any attempt which can be made to reduce the high unemployment figures.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I think I am right in saying that overall about 60 per cent. of the rate bill is paid by industry and this affects their ability to employ more people.

My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the Statement, allied to the Statements in relation to Scotland and England, and the Bill published today, bring into high relief the whole future of democratic local government in this country? If, for example, in an economic depression local authorities are forbidden, in reality, to do some relief work which the Government refuses to do, what is to be the future?

:No, my Lords, I cannot accept that. I accept this is a tough settlement, but we believe that it is achievable. It is worth remembering that last year 32 out of the 45 Welsh authorities achieved their targets and have shown that it is possible to do so. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is the duty of the Government to fix total expenditure levels, for all the reasons we have given, and that it is central to our economic policy.

:My Lords, will the noble Baroness deal with one short question? Will she confirm that if inflation runs at the Government's predicted figure of 4½per cent. there will be a cut in the grant in real terms?

My Lords, I think the general estimate for the future rate of inflation is 4.8 per cent., as it is now, or perhaps lower. We believe it is important that when fixing their wages local authorities must take account of the 3 per cent. increase that the Government have given as a guideline on wage settlements. Furthermore, we believe that local authorities must continue to ensure that they are getting value for money and look for good housekeeping in the way that they spend their money. Given those aspects and the other points I have made, we believe that it is possible for authorities to keep within the targets which have been set.

My Lords, coming back to my noble friend's point, does not the noble Baroness accept that if the Government fix all spending, and force the local authorities so to do, there will be no incentive for the ratepayers and the electors in a district to get rid of their authority or its members?

My Lords, the Government have fixed expenditure levels, but within those there is wide variation between authorities on what they choose to do. Some authorities have got themselves into difficulties because, for example, they have not increased rents by the amounts suggested and on the basis of which the grant will be calculated. There is discretion for local authorities, and it is therefore within the right of the electors to choose, if they so wish, to change the council at local elections.

My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about the contract between Britoil and British Shipbuilders.

"In December 1981 Scott Lithgow contracted with Britoil to produce a semi-submersible drilling rig. The contract value was £88.6 million, and the contractual delivery date was April 1984. Construction began in February 1982.

"By March 1983, British Shipbuilders had provided for losses of £43.8 million on the rig. The then Chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson. warned that performance and losses at Scott Lithgow were unacceptable.

"On 31st October 1983, Britoil were sufficiently concerned about progress on the contract to issue through its agents a notice requiring Scott Lithgow to demonstrate within 30 days that the rig could be completed by February 1985.

"Scott Lithgow responded to Britoil by arguing that, despite the undoubted delays on the contract hitherto, completion would be possible within the terms of the contract.

"However, on 19th December a notice of cancellation was served on behalf of Britoil on the basis that Scott Lithgow had not demonstrated that the rig could be delivered by February 1985.

"British Shipbuilders have responded to the cancellation notice by disputing its validity, and I understand that they have now instituted legal proceedings. While British Shipbuilders and Britoil are considering the next step in this negotiation, all work on the rig will be stopped. British Shipbuilders are instructing suppliers to suspend work on contracts relating to the rig. Up to 2,000 members of the workforce are involved in construction of the rig. The remainder of the workforce—approximately 2,250 men—are employed on two other contracts: one for BP and one for the Ministry of Defence. It is British Shipbuilders' intention that these contracts will continue.

"Unemployment in this area is already high and a further increase of the scale implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has this morning met the Scottish TUC and told them that he would of course seek to do all he can to alleviate the very real distress that would be caused in the local community. However, the offshore industry is highly competitive and customers insist upon contractors—including management and workforce—delivering on quality, price and time. Regrettably, Scott Lithgow so far appears to have been unable to satisfy Britoil that it can fulfil its obligations on this contract."

My Lords, that completes the Statement.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. He will perhaps forgive me if initially I say that the Statement is set out in terms that amount to a debonair detachment from the real problems that are involved. The Statement is indeed a very grave one. There is not only the possibility that 4,000 people will be unemployed ultimately as a result of the loss of the contract. There is also the possibility that a mortal blow will be dealt at the whole oil rig construction industry in the United Kingdom. These are matters which should be of considerable concern to the Government. They cannot leave things exactly where they are.

It is difficult when matters are at issue between parties, as at this time they appear to be between British Shipbuilders and Britoil, to elicit from published statements much information as to the relative culpability of either party. As is well known, when contracts are delayed certain rights attach to the customer. These often give rise to disputes between the parties as to the real reasons why there have been delays. Anyone who has had experience in construction generally or in the building construction industry well knows that there can be changes or modifications in design half way through the contract or defaults in the case of nominated sub-contractors at certain parts of the contract, all of which can contribute to delay.

The statement that by March 1983 £43.8 million had been lost on a contract the total value of which was £88.6 million is absolutely astounding. The loss cannot be accounted for merely by restrictive practices on the part of the workforce, which is an argument that may be in the minds of some noble Lords. There must have been a considerable miscalculation. As I understand it, the contract is about 30 per cent. complete. It requires considerable explanation as to how half of the contract value has been lost within the first year of the work. Did the noble Lord or his right honourable friend know in the spring or early summer of 1983 that those losses had already taken place? If so, surely that merited active intervention by the Government to see what was going wrong.

The noble Lord states that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today met Scottish TUC representatives and told them that he will do all he can to alleviate any hardship that might conceivably arise. However, another statement has been made by the Secretary of State on BBC radio, which the noble Lord may or may not he able to confirm. It is to the effect that there is still a six-week breathing space before matters become absolute and still the possibility of negotiation between the parties. If that is so, far be it for me to say anything that will in any way prejudice the success of these negotiations. But, if there is a six-week breathing space—and I hope that the noble Lord will he able to confirm this—I suggest that, in view of the national importance of this industry, it is the Government's duty at any rate to investigate the claims being put forward by the respective parties and to assist them in arriving at a solution. The matter certainly cannot be left where it is.

On this side of the House we hope that the Government will accept that their responsibility is to do everything that they can—if necessary by ministerial guidance and advice—to ensure that some settlement is reached within the six-week period. In particular, they ought to investigate the position in regard to the representations made by Britoil about requesting British Shipbuilders to demonstrate that it could complete by February 1985. In shipping terms that is known conventionally as the "drop dead" date. According to the statement, Scott Lithgow argues that it could complete, whereas Britoil says that it is not satisfied. Surely there is scope for investigation by the Government in that matter. I sincerely hope that they will take active steps to do that.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his Statement. In many senses the situation is a tragedy. It seems that this Christmas is associated with tragedy, and this particular tragedy appears to be self-inflicted. I live within a few miles of Scott Lithgow's yard and can readily visualise the real depth of the tragedy in a district which already has 20 per cent. unemployment. The number who will be thrown out of work on the loss of this particular contract will be about 2,000. The viability of the whole yard will also be brought into question since it has on its books only the two remaining contracts mentioned by the Minister. That would probably mean that the number of people unemployed would be increased by 4,000 as a result of the closure of Scott Lithgow. Ships have been built there at the tail of the bank since 1711.

Is the Minister aware that in that yard British Shipbuilders spent £13½ million last year in modernising the plant? This decision reported today represents a colossal waste, not only of its investment of public money but also of thousands of skilled workers who are being thrown on the scrap heap. Has the Minister taken into account, when he makes the calculations reported in the Statement, the national implications of this decision? In Scotland we have been building up a new industry, based on our experience of North Sea oil. Does he realise the implications of the closure if this rig, which is one-third completed, is towed away to Japan, South Korea or France for completion? This would have very serious implications, not only for Scott Lithgow but for the whole image of this new industry on which so many of our hopes in Scotland are based.

Will the Minister accept that while he recites a very sad story of delays, this is, in fact, a very highly sophisticated rig? In fact, it is the most advanced rig in the world. It is dealing in technologies of which we have little previous experience. The rig is designed to work in depths of 4,500 feet in the hostile waters of the Atlantic, and this has never been previously achieved in this new technology without anchors. Will he accept that there are probably responsibilities on all sides for the difficulties that have now arisen? Will he also accept that it is easy but not always helpful to attribute all the difficulties and blame to the workforce of Scott Lithgow?

Will the noble Lord accept that the closure of Scott Lithgow and the closure of the rig building activities at that yard have serious implications for the steel industry in Scotland and also implications for Ravenscraig? Will the Minister tell us a little of what the Secretary of State for Scotland promised in his negotiations with the TUC? To be helpful in relieving distress is one thing: to intervene in this serious situation and to try to knock heads together is another. I hope that it is that positive approach, rather than the prospect of social security, that is going to be offered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Finally, will the Minister read The Scotsman of today—a newspaper not unfriendly to the Government? It says that,

"those who sought to allocate blame for the difficulties now facing Scott-Lithgow were following an irresponsible quest which can produce only a fruitless outcome".

It points out:

"The customer and the supplier will desert their social and industrial responsibilities if they do anything other than to seek to resolve their differences…".

This dispute is between two industries in which the state has a substantial responsibility. British Shipbuilders is 100 per cent. state owned. Britoil is 48 per cent. state owned. Is it beyond the capacity of Government to bring these industries together before this tragedy has its full impact on the Clyde? I hope that the Minister will encourage us a little on this account.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that the Statement indicated "a debonair detachment". I must take issue immediately with his comment. The Statement said specifically that a further increase of the scale of unemployment implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern for the Government. I agree entirely with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for Scotland. It is a tragedy for British Shipbuilders. It is a tragedy for the management. It is a tragedy for the workforce. Let there be no question about that.

But, equally, it is a clear illustration of what happens when people are not prepared to come to terms with the problems of the world in which they live. There have been great deficiencies, both in management and on the part of the workforce in Scott Lithgow. I am not attempting to apportion blame. I could go into the matter in great detail. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, admitted that it was not merely the result of restrictive practices. I agree with him. The restrictive practices have played a considerable part. We are threatened, in fact, with a national strike in order to maintain restrictive practices, which hardly seems to be the right way of dealing with the kind of problems with which British Shipbuilders is faced.

There is a long history of difficulties in the Scott Lithgow yard. It has made very large losses over a period of years. There is nothing new about this. All of these facts are on the record. They appear in the published accounts of British Shipbuilders. Over the years, since nationalisation, Scott Lithgow has lost£165 million, which is 38 per cent. of the total losses made by British Shipbuilders. In the year 1982–83 alone—these figures are in the published accounts —Scott Lithgow lost £66 million out of a total loss by British Shipbuilders of £117 million. So there is no question but that the problems confronting Scott Lithgow have been well known, have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the press, and, indeed, have been raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, who has repeatedly pressed me on the progress being made in this field.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked if this was the end of the United Kingdom's off-shore rig capacity. The answer is "No". Within British Shipbuilders there is Cammell Laird, which has an established position in the construction of both semi-submersible and jack-up rigs. Harland and Wolff also has suitable facilities for mobile off-shore structures. In the private sector, UIE at Clydebank has an excellent record and there are a number of other firms with a good record in this field, including Highland Fabricators and McDermott's who are jointly building a floating production platform for Sonoco, and Howard Doris who have tendered in competition with Cammell Laird for Sun Oil's semi-submersible floating production facility. So there are other facilities available.

So far as the merits or demerits of the case are concerned, a writ has been issued. The matter is now before the courts and it is sub judice. It is not therefore open to me to comment on the merits of the cases put forward either by British Shipbuilders, on the one hand, or by Britoil, on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to a six weeks' breathing space before these matters become finalised. Here again, one of the major issues in the litigation is whether or not the notice of cancellation served by Britoil is a valid notice. The noble Lord will not therefore expect me to comment further on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made a passionate plea for intervention by the Government. But the simple truth of the matter here is that this is a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and its customer. A very substantial loss has already been made. There are likely to be further losses incurred. The Government have provided a very large amount of finance for British Shipbuilders and this was a matter which I touched upon in the Bill that your Lordships recently passed dealing with the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders. But as regards an individual order, it is not right for the Government to intervene.

:My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is simply a dispute between Britoil and Scott Lithgow. But has the noble Lord done the sums about the cost to the British Government if the rig is cancelled? What would be the additional loss which would have to be met by the Government? What would be the loss in revenue from the income tax which otherwise would be paid by the workers? What would be the cost to the state of maintaining those workers if they were thrown out of work?

:My Lords, the noble Lord believes that the Government should intervene in this individual case. We do not think it is a matter for the Government to intervene. As far as British Shipbuilders as a whole are concerned, their total loss last year was £117 million, of which not less than £66 million related to Scott Lithgow. Exactly what the future level of losses will be, either for Scott Lithgow generally or in relation to this particular order, must depend upon the outcome of the litigation.

My Lords, with respect, I did not advance any opinion as to whether or not the Government should intervene. I asked a question. I asked, first, what would be the direct cost to the Government of the additional loss: secondly, what would be the cost to the Government of the loss of revenue if the workers are no longer earning; and, thirdly, what would be the loss to the Government if the Government had to maintain these workers by way of social security.

:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for not advocating that the Government should intervene. As regards the rest of his questions, I did, frankly, answer them. The financial consequences depend upon the outcome of the litigation and any negotiations which may take place between British Shipbuilders and Britoil.

:My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept that not many of us in this House see him as being detached from this problem, debonair or otherwise? At the same time, will he realise that his Statement seemed to chide the management and the workforce, and they alone, for what must be a very complex problem, and that that hardly seems sufficient in the circumstances? Will he turn his mind to some of the matters which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington raised? What part, if any, was played in these regrettable delays by design changes or other alterations in the requirements of the customer? What part has been played by delays or difficulties in supply by sub-contractors, whether nominated, as my noble friend said, or otherwise? What part, if any, has been played by the difficulties among suppliers? All of these matters are important, and all of them contribute towards something which the noble Lord the Minister has quite rightly recognised as a tragedy. However, in view of the difficulties of the situation will he recognise that, while he says that he blames nobody, he does seem to blame two groups when they may not be entirely to blame?

My Lords, no man is an island entire unto himself, and any tragedy which occurs affects all of us. I do not think that there is any dispute between any of your Lordships on that point. Nobody is attempting to pretend that this situation is not a tragedy. There is a point of difference as to the extent to which the Government ought to intervene in a situation of this kind, but let me not pursue that any further at the present juncture.

The noble Lord raised a number of specific points. I entirely agree with him that they are all important, but they are all points directly related to the litigation which is now in progress, and it would therefore, I fear, be improper for me to comment upon them.

My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord a little further. When the noble Lord made reference to the breathing space referred to by me, he did not at the same time confirm or deny that it was his right honourable friend who, according to the BBC, said that six weeks remained to consider and settle the matter between the parties. Will the noble Lord confirm or deny that those words, or substantially those words, were used by his right honourable friend? On the assumption that they were used, surely the noble Lord will agree that, notwithstanding the observations he has correctly made about matters sub judice, it would be in order for the Government to assist the two parties to arrive at some agreement during the six weeks which, according to his right honourable friend, remain for the matter to be considered and settled between the parties?

My Lords, I have not seen the text of the statement to which the noble Lord refers, and I would hesitate to make any comment upon it, particularly as one relevant point is when the statement was made. I do not want to go into an excessive degree of detail on this, but the contract provides for notice to be served within a 30-day period. The contract can extend 300 days after the delivery date. Some of the points in issue in the litigation are whether valid notice was served within that 30-day period and whether or not the rig could be completed within the further 300 days allowed under the contract. But we are treading on very thin ice at the moment because the whole of this matter is the subject of litigation, and I really ought not to comment further on the merits or demerits of the arguments being advanced.

:My Lords, in that situation, can the Minister tell the House whether any estimate has been made of how prolonged or otherwise this litigation is likely to be, and whether or not any action is open to them to expedite the matter?

My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's first question is, I fear: No, I do not know how long it will take. The noble and learned Lord himself is well aware—and I have to be very careful—that sometimes the law proceeds with greater speed than it does on other occasions. The Government have no plans, and nor. indeed, are they in any position to intervene in the litigation.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that, if in the judgment of the Scottish Tourist Board the time required to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State and to consult with the British Tourist Authority as aforesaid would be likely to result in the opportunity to carry on the particular activity under consideration being lost or prejudiced to the detriment of the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Scotland, then the Scottish Tourist Board may proceed without such consent and after such consultation with the British Tourist Authority as they consider administratively desirable and necessary to carry on that particular activity.").

This is an interesting amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could use it to give us some indication of a number of points, including the nature of the consultation that is likely to take place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has raised the question of the time taken to carry out these consultations. It would be interesting if the noble Lord the Minister of State has any information as to how long a consultation on specific promotions will take. I agree that long-term plans will be laid periodically. For instance, can he tell us how many people in St. Andrew's House, or wherever else in Edinburgh they happen to be in the Scottish Civil Service, deal exclusively or largely with the Scottish Tourist Board, and what sort of relationship they have with the Scottish Tourist Board? I can understand that an amendment as long as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, would, from my experience, not be acceptable to a Government department. However, I am sure that the sentiment in it is something that I should be only too happy to support.

Even in these circumstances, and given the well-worn formula that the Minister accepts it in principle but will take it away to look at the wording again, perhaps we could get that concession from him. He has been rather tardy about giving us concessions so far. Perhaps he could also, if not immediately then before the end of the debate, give us some idea of the other points—namely, the nature of the consultation and the number of Scottish civil servants actually involved with tourism.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for the way in which he moved this amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the very reasonable attitude which he takes to it. The amendment would permit the Scottish Tourist Board in certain circumstances to disregard the obligation imposed on it under subsection (2) of Clause 1 to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before promoting Scotland overseas.

The amendment provides that, where the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or lead to the loss of promotion opportunities, it may proceed without Secretary of State approval, undertaking only such consultations with the British Tourist Authority as it thinks fit.

The amendment as drafted would negate the purposes of subsection (2). The Scottish Tourist Board. which in the Bill as currently drafted is under an obligation to obtain the Secretary of State's consent, would by this amendment itself be entitled to determine whether to disregard the consent requirement. There would be little point in imposing a statutory obligation on a body if that body were itself entitled to decide when to disregard it. I think, therefore, that as a matter of logic I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.

I recognise, however, that in tabling this amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, may be concerned to probe the mechanics of the consent procedure and to guard against any possibility that the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals could get silted up in time-consuming bureaucratic procedures. I wholly share the concern of the noble and learned Lord in this matter. But I assure the Committee again, as I did at Second Reading, that the consent procedure is designed as a final check on the compatibility of the Scottish Tourist Board's and the British Tourist Authority's programmes, not as an exhaustive appraisal of the tourism merits of the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals.

It may be helpful to refer to the comments made during debate on the provision in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, on which this subsection is modelled. Then, too, concern was expressed that the requirement on local authorities and area tourist boards to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to their overseas promotion proposals would lead to delay and possibly to the loss of promotion opportunities. This is exactly what the noble and learned Lord has in mind. Experience has since confirmed our view that such proposals can be dealt with expeditiously—they are, in fact. processed within a matter of days of their receipt by my department. And a special accelerated procedure for urgent applications ensures that there is no loss of promotion opportunities. The procedure applying to the approval of the Scottish Tourist Board's programme should be no more complex or time-consuming than that followed in relation to the approval of local authorities' proposals. Indeed, since the Scottish Tourist Board will, each year, be submitting its programme of overseas promotions for the year ahead for the Secretary of State's approval well in advance of the promotion season, there is little risk of delay resulting from the consent requirement. May I emphasise, too, that, since we fully expect continued close liaison between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board on overseas promotion proposals, the Secretary of State's separate consultations with the British Tourist Authority should normally be only a fail-safe measure.

I do not believe, however, that there will be any delay by the British Tourist Authority in considering any request for views. I am confident that the BTA will play its full part promptly in the consent procedure. The BTA has a statutory right to advise any Minister on tourism matters in Great Britain, and is expert in this advisory function. I hope that I have been able to allay the noble and learned Lord's concern about the impact of the consent provision in the Scottish Tourist Board's plans, and I hope that he may feel that he can withdraw his amendment.

Before I sit down, however, I should like to deal with the two points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The number of civil servants engaged in tourism in the particular functions to which he referred amount to four and a half. From his own ministerial experience, he will realise that it is not unusual to cut civil servants in two when giving such figures. I have touched upon the nature of consultation briefly already: it is to ensure that there is not a duplication between the projects entered into by the British Tourist Authority and those of the Scottish Tourist Board, and the nature of the consultation can be from a wide-ranging consultation to merely ascertaining the dates on which certain projects are to take place.

:Can the noble Lord tell us whether, in consequence of this Bill, the number of civil servants devoted to Scottish tourism will rise, and whether perhaps they will get to a round figure from now on?

There is no likelihood of any rise in the number of civil servants overall. Whether there may from time to time be justification for a slight apportionment to bring them up to five, or down to four, will remain to be seen, but it is not likely that there will be any major change. The Scottish Tourist Board itself considers that it will be able to carry out the new responsibilities given to it principally from within its own numbers.

Is not the noble Lord the Minister being uncharacteristically harsh in accusing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of trying to negate the provisions of subsection (2)? I do not think that that is his intention, although the amendment is longer than the kind of amendments I am used to; nor, as I heard his speech, was he intending so much to negate the provisions as to make the provisions more reasonable. Is that not a reasonable thing for a reasonable man like the Minister to want to do?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in his amendment begins with the word "Provided". The very word "provided" indicates that he is not trying to negate the provisions of the Bill. It sets a body of circumstances in which the harsh rigour of subsection (2) might be ameliorated. Within these provisions it seems to me sensible that the noble and learned Lord should ask for the provisions of the Bill to be ameliorated. If we refer back to the discussions we had on the earlier amendments some little while ago the Minister will understand why the provisions should be ameliorated, and I have no intention of repeating the arguments because we have but a short while here and we do not want to overstay our welcome.

I was a little taken aback by the Minister's assertion, or apparent assertion, that the department would deal with any matter expeditiously. It is not my experience of the Civil Service that they deal with things expeditiously—not even the Scottish Department. They deal with them as rapidly as they may, of that I have no doubt, but I think that expeditiously is too much to claim. All that the noble and learned Lord was asking for, as I understood it. was that in certain circumstances where speed was of the essence the Scottish Tourist Board should be able to act with vigour, haste, and immediacy without being held back by the provisions of the Bill.

I am perfectly willing to have the Minister tell me that Lord Wilson's amendment, as drafted, goes perhaps further than that modest intention, and the Minister, I think, would be right if he were to say that, but the intention is that the Minister should apply his mind not merely to the wording of the amendment. The Minister should say, "Lord Wilson of Langside's intention is sound, the principle is sound, and the principle should be accepted: the Bill should be drafted in such a way as to make that principle appropriate in law and in practice". I hope that the Minister will take heed of these words, which are meant to be advisory, friendly, and helpful.

May I proceed to be helpful too? What this amendment by my noble and learned friend does is highlight the position of the Scottish Tourist Board and the amount of difficulties which hedge it around. Perhaps I may take a practical example. The situation that I envisage happening very easily is that the Scottish Tourist Board will find out that in the programme which they may or may not have had from the British Tourist Authority an important promotion has been neglected or left out, or there may be an outright disagreement with the British Tourist Authority, which I would imagine the budget given to the Scottish Tourist Authority is designed to correct. If they feel deeply that a certain promotion should be undertaken and that there is only a certain amount of time to get in on it, then they should be able to act quickly.

The Minister should now take the advice on a previous amendment of his noble friend Lord Selkirk and, instead of being forced to waste a lot of time in negotiations with the British Tourist Authority in consultations, he will be able by using the word "may" to listen to the reasonable case of the Scottish Tourist Board and authorise them to go ahead. The amendment raises the points that we have been making on previous occasions.

I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for what they have said. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, were perhaps a little sensitive to the criticisms of my drafting, which I thought was at least as comprehensive as what the draftsmen often produce for our delectation. However, the amendment as it stands was essentially, as the Minister said, a probing amendment, and in the light of what he has said—and I hope he will give serious regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said—

:I have a horrible feeling that the noble and learned Lord is about to withdraw his amendment. Does he wish to withdraw before the Minister has had a chance to reply to these probing points put to him?

:I had rather thought that I would withdraw at this stage. I had overlooked the circumstance that the Minister had not replied. I am sorry. I thought that we had been on these amendments for quite a long time.

:I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that we have been some considerable time on them, and I do not feel that I can make any great further contribution. But as a matter of courtesy I shall try to deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, raised and which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made. I shall deal with Lord Mackie's point first. He said there might be a case where there could he outright disagreement. Of course if there was outright disagreement then the will of the Secretary of State for Scotland would be the deciding factor. I explained earlier that the British Tourist Authority is consulted, but the decision is not dependent on its consent. The decision would ultimately be with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, suggested that I was accusing his noble friend of trying to negate something. What I was trying to explain was, like it or like it not, that would be the effect of the amendment: but as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it was a probing amendment. We have considered the possibility and I have tried to explain what the effect would have been.

If the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or to lead to loss of promotional opportunities, it may proceed without the Secretary of State's approval. That is virtually what the noble Lord is suggesting in this amendment. As I said earlier, I do not think it would he sensible to proceed on the basis that one writes something in and allows the person most directly concerned with it to decide whether it should be approved. That to me does not sound like the making of good law. There are others who are much better able to pass judgment on that than I am. As a layman it would seem a weak point to me.

:May I make a brief point? I do not wish to delay the Minister, but surely it will be within his experience—as it is within the experience of most of us—that the law of this country is dotted with provisions which make statements of a fairly straight forward and clear kind which are followed by the words, "except in so far as". Then follows the exception. Thus the notion of making an exception to a provision in the law is by no means new. It is hallowed by time immemorial.

:That may be so; but I am afraid I cannot really accept the amendment as it is proposed nor, indeed, is the principle behind the amendment sound. I do not think that we want to write into legislation anything which is not absolutely sound. Therefore I must, with the greatest respect, suggest that it would probably be better if this amendment were withdrawn. I trust that the noble and learned Lord might consider withdrawing it.

:I am sorry to delay proceedings, but I think the Minister misunderstood the point that I was making. My point was very simple, that if the Secretary of State had a statutory duty to consult the British Tourist Authority and it was in direct dispute with the Scottish Tourist Authority, there was nothing like an authority of that sort for delaying its answer to the consultations until it was too late for the point at issue. Therefore the Secretary of State should be able, if necessary, to ignore that, which he could do by taking advice from his noble friend and putting in the word "may" instead of "shall".

I am afraid that the noble Lord has misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. That is not what this amendment says. It suggests that the Scottish Tourist Board should not necessarily consult when it does not see the necessity for doing so.

The Minister is quite right about this amendment. I dare say I was totally out of order in going back on a previous amendment to show him the error of his ways in a previous discussion.

:With the leave of the Committee I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry I seem to have upset Lord Howie of Troon in doing it too soon.

No.

:There is no-one I should less like to upset because I have a great respect for the noble Lord. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I should like to make it clear to the Minister that in my fallible judgment he was wrong to suggest that giving people a discretion makes bad law. Half the had law we have emerges because we do not give people discretion, but they have to stick to the letter and lose sight of the spirit. Having made my point that I am not impressed by that part of his argument, in the light of what else has been said by the Minister and by others who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 20, after ("Scotland") insert ("provided they do so with the consent of and after consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board").

:I should like to urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It would make some sense of the whole Bill. Up to now it is a small thing—the £200,000 to be used somewhat grudgingly, as allowed by the Secretary of State and approved by the British Tourist Authority. But it is only sensible to give Scotland and the Scottish Tourist Board a proper say, a significant say, in the £2 million which the British Tourist Authority is spending overseas. To do that, they need the powers given in this amendment. It makes it into a real Bill which gives the Scottish Tourist Board some real say overseas without interfering with the British Tourist Authority and the general promotion of Britain. I think it is a very sensible amendment and I urge the Minister to accept it.

:I, too, think that this is a wholly admirable amendment. It is right in principle in the context of this Bill that it should be there. I think in practice it would make the working efficiency and competence of the various tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority better. For that reason, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

:This amendment would impose on the British Tourist Authority a requirement to consult the Scottish Tourist Board and obtain its consent to the BTA's promotions of Scotland overseas. I am grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the way in which he presented his case, but this amendment is fundamentally at odds with our intention as to how the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board should exercise their overseas promotion powers. I believe that approval of this amendment would be profoundly damaging to the cohesiveness of the 1969 Act framework, and to the coherence of the total British marketing effort abroad.

This amendment would oblige BTA not simply to consult the Scottish Tourist Board on its efforts overseas involving Scotland—BTA already does this as a matter of course—but it would make BTA's promotions involving Scotland subject to STB approval. Your Lordships will appreciate that much of BTA's effort on Scotland's behalf is made in the context of all-Britain promotions covering the three countries. In preparing such Great Britain promotions. BTA has to assess the relative marketing requirements of England, Scotland and Wales in relation to the target market and the particular product being promoted. The Scottish Tourist Board is in no position to gauge its marketing needs against those of England and Wales in any particular promotion. Only the British Tourist Authority, which can take an overview of the three countries' requirements, is in a position to make this kind of judgment. To give STB control over all-Britain promotions with any Scottish element would inevitably and unfairly prejudice English and Welsh interests. Where all-Britain promotions are concerned, the body at the centre—the British Tourist Authority—is the body best equipped to reconcile all the various competing needs and to take a final view of the right promotional "mix" for England, Scotland and Wales. This is the view I expressed at Second Reading and it remains a cornerstone of our policy on tourism promotion overseas.

The need for approval which this amendment would introduce would be wholly at odds with the basis of co-operation and consensus on which the boards currently operate and which I want to see continue. The BTA consults the national boards individually at an early stage in preparing its main Great Britain marketing programme and takes due account of comments made. Also, through the membership of the BTA board, the chairman of the three national boards are able to influence the scale and content of BTA's marketing programme for Britain as a whole. It is through such consultation and discussion that the marketing programme takes shape and is finally agreed. A statutory consultation provision affecting BTA and STB alone would just not work.

We fully acknowledge that Scotland would benefit from additional, specialised overseas promotions by the Scottish Tourist Board. Clause 1 is designed to allow this to happen. But we are also firmly committed to maintaining a coherent British effort under BTA's overall control. This amendment would fragment the overall effort, setting Scotland against the rest of Britain; and that is the last thing we want to happen. The way ahead, in our view, is not to seek confrontation—and I do not suggest for a moment that that is the intention of the amendment; but it could be its result—but to build on the existing framework of co-operation and consensus among all four tourist boards.

When we talk about the tourist boards, I think that I must emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, that there is no commitment to a merger of the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The new British Tourist Authority chairman, Mr. Bluck, will be looking only at the possibility of combination. No decision whatsoever has been taken at the present moment. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that it is our view that Scotland will benefit more amply from the measures which we are taking than if we were to do as the noble Lord in his amendment suggests. I hope that on reflection he may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

:I am beginning to have serious doubts about the noble Lord the Minister who. I am sad to say, I do not know very well, since he entered another place after I left it and has only recently joined us here. But I am watching with great interest. He has the reputation of being a reasonable man and we have all been telling ourselves all afternoon that he is a reasonable man. I do not know how reasonable he is; but he has not done anything remotely reasonable today as yet. He has not conceded anything. He has not said that he will think again. He has been nice, he has been agreeable, but he has not given us a thing. I see sitting beside him his noble friend Lord Lyell, whom we have often enjoyed on these Scottish occasions. He treats us fairly roughly and endearingly, but every once in a while he says, "I will think over what you have said". He does not mean that, but at least he says from time to time that he will consider, in thinking over what we have said, whether or not some sense can be made out of our arguments and the principles that we have tried to argue here. I have not seen the Minister do that today. I am not as yet convinced that he is an unreasonable man, because I see that he has a very reasonable face and I feel sure that in time he will convince me that he is a reasonable man: but he will have to hurry if he is going to do it today, because he is well behind the start-line in that particular matter.

He has just given us a very lengthy, detailed and extremely informative speech, which told us quite a bit about the relationships between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. I dare say it was philosophically sound, and it related precisely to certain questions put to him by my noble friend Lord Carmichael: but I am not sure, interesting though it was, that it was totally relevant to the principle of this amendment.

The principle is really a very sound and simple one. I would have thought it was a very reasonable one, which required a reasonable examination and possibly a reasonable reply, which I hope to have later. If it is right that the Scottish Tourist Board should consult with its British equivalent about particularly Scottish matters under subsection (2), it cannot be wildly wrong that the British authority should consult with the Scottish authority about specifically Scottish questions under subsection (3). The principle seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward one.

It is quite possible that the amendment is unduly brutal, because we on this side are simple folk and sometimes put complex arguments in over-simple ways. But the principle is clear, and I should have liked the Minister to have paused in the middle of that extremely informative speech and said, "Yes, there is an interesting principle here." He might possibly have said that the principle was wrong: but at least he could say. "I will have a look at the principle and consider it", instead of just damning it outright as he seems to have done. After all, we are just at the Committee stage, and there is a fair way to go. I should not like the Minister to lengthen the process by obliging us to put down all kinds of amendments at a later stage. All he has to say is, "There is some sense in this; I will look at it and see what sense there is, and see whether or not something can be done to make the Bill better."

:May I ask my noble friend, before he replies, whether he would be good enough to confirm that under the 1969 Act the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority? Is that correct? If so, does that in fact mean that all that the British Tourist Authority is doing will necessarily be known to the Scottish Tourist Board?

Yes, I can confirm that, if I might answer my noble friend before I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is correct that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority. I indicated earlier that when the British Tourist Authority presents its programme for overseas promotion at the beginning of each year the chairmen of the various national tourist boards are in a position to hear exactly what is intended. They can then report back to their own boards, and thus, hopefully, conflicts are avoided.

To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who has been very nice to me all afternoon, I must say—and I feel rather unkind that I cannot give him something as a reward—the plain fact is that, however well-intentioned the amendment is, I am not satisfied that it is going to be an improvement. To accept the amendment, or even to give a commitment to take this away and look at it again without having some real conviction oneself that one can produce something which is better, is not really what the Committee would expect.

I cannot accept this amendment because I am not convinced that it would be an improvement. I believe that the arrangement the Government have proposed in the Bill is the best for Scotland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is as anxious to see the best for Scotland as I am. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is equally anxious to achieve that end, and although he supports the noble Lords in this amendment I must tell him that I am not convinced that it would be an improvement, and therefore I cannot accept it.

:The noble Lord the Minister earlier spoke a good deal about the need for cohesiveness and consensus. That is a view with which none would disagree. For my part, I would have thought that this amendment would produce more cohesiveness and a more readily-reached consensus than the Bill as it now stands, under which the obligations to seek consent and to consult are all on the other side.

I have felt for a long time—and I said something of this on Second Reading—that there was perhaps a fatal flaw in the set-up which we introduced in 1969. I speak of the Government of which I was then a member. I thought it might very well be that the bureaucratic difficulties, which one gathered from the press, radio and television had arisen from the working of the 1969 Act, derived perhaps from the circumstance that the British Tourist Authority and the three national hoards all had common functions within the United Kingdom and then the British Tourist Authority was given, in addition to those same functions as the other boards, the overall responsibility for activities overseas. I could have understood a set up where the British Tourist Authority, having been given no functions within the United Kingdom, was given the overall administrative responsibility for co-ordinating the activities overseas (and perhaps within the United Kingdom, too) of the three boards.

I think this is relevant, or it may be relevant, to the Minister's search for cohesiveness or consensus, if that is what we want, in the working of the three hoards. I would have thought that in practice this amendment would promote that, instead of the wording of the Bill which, as I say, puts all the obligations to consult and to seek permission to do things on the Scottish Tourist Board and leaves the British Tourist Authority with a question mark against its place in the set-up, if I am right, with its powers and duties unimpaired and unaffected by this Bill.

:I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I really cannot add, I am afraid, to what I have already said, other than perhaps to say that the Scottish Tourist Board itself is pleased with this measure. It believes it to be more than reasonable. The board itself has made no representations to me regarding the sort of amendment which noble Lords are suggesting at the present moment.

With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, I am not convinced that this would be an improvement. I believe that what the Government have set out is the most satisfactory position for Scotland. I am sorry that I cannot be more sympathetic to the amendments that have been proposed, but the only reason I am not sympathetic to them is that I do not see that any one of them would improve what is proposed. If I did, I would willingly take each suggestion away and look at it again. But I am not convinced and that is why I have not suggested that I might take them away.

:I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to know that we have a piece of perfect legislation before us. This comes from a reasonable man. The only conclusion I can come to is that we have a reasonable man in an unreasonable Government. He now comes along and suggests to us that, after all, the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased with the Bill and has not complained. Mind you, the Scottish Tourist Board happens to be the creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints the members and he gets rid of them. I do not know whether or not they are reaching the stage of reappointment, but I cannot see the Scottish Tourist Board raising its voice in respect of this Bill. The question is: Are we satisfied that it is a piece of perfect legislation?

The Minister, if he is a reasonable man—I hope that he is not an insensitive man—must have been aware that on two earlier amendments he sat there isolated and alone. He listened for a voice of support from his own Back-Benches in respect of this perfect piece of legislation and it did not come. It is all right to expect the Scottish Tourist Board to require the consent of the Secretary of State; and if you go back to the original legislation on to which this Bill is tacked your Lordships will find that the consent of the Treasury is required as well, so far as money is concerned. It is all right for the Secretary of State to have to consult—the word used is not "may" but "shall"; it is a mandatory obligation—the British Tourist Authority. But when we try to put the balance right just a little, so that when dealing with Scottish projection overseas and all the publicity worth £2 million—

£200,000.

:I am not talking about the Scottish Tourist Board; I am talking about the British Tourist Authority interpreting the needs of Scotland in respect of tourism, and that spends £2 million, not a grudging £200,000. But I gather that we shall be talking about money on Clause stand part. There was a promise given by the Minister, but we shall come to that later. But, surely, if there is any body which should know and should be concerned about our projection overseas, it is the Scottish Tourist Board. Is it unreasonable to ask for its consent? The Minister says, "But it already consults." I can see a gleam of light. We might even get that into the Bill at Report stage, if we miss out "consent" and put in "consult". We shall then get mandatory consultation.

Things are changing in the tourist field and that is the whole point of the Statement made by the Minister of State in another place. Our hackles were first raised when he tried to soothe the Welsh and English Members by saying, "This is only a very limited power that we are giving to Scotland." Before that, we thought we had achieved a great victory. I can understand that the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased that we have opened the door, but it would be far better pleased if it had some say in the spending of the much larger sum of £2 million. I could speak about some of the mistakes made abroad in the projection of Scotland by the British Tourist Authority. I could talk about incidents in Paris which affected Strathclyde, because of an individual from the British Tourist Authority, but I do not want to do that.

Every reasonable man would agree about the best people to advise on the projection of Scotland and on what is required in a particular year. In a year when we shall probably have a gathering of the clans you would not think that somebody who was purely identified with England would be able to advise properly. He probably could not even spell most of the Scottish names. That has happened, too. I could tell your Lordships about English Ministers who thought that Benbecula was off the West Coast of Northern England. There is an abysmal ignorance about anything that happens north of the Tweed among people who should know very much better. So we are reasonable in asking for consent.

The Minister says, "What we want to get is consensus". How do you get consensus without consent? What does the word "consensus" mean? It means everyone agreeing. The Minister made the perfectly valid point to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority, as are the chairmen of the English Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. I do not know whether it has escaped the noble Earl's notice that the gentleman who is to be chairman of the British Tourist Authority has already been told that he will become chairman of the English Tourist Board as well. I do not know how we shall get a fair consensus with one of these regional chairmen in the chair. I could have understood it if the chairmanship had gone around. That would have been sensible and fair—fair to the Welsh, fair to the English and fair to the Scots. This is really a very national matter of concern.

I know that there have been voices raised before about the prominence of English stalls at various functions, where they stake out the tartan and all the symbols of Scotland. Sadly for the English, they do not have the same symbolism in respect of nationalism as we have in Scotland. It may be easier for us. But, surely, this is why we should have consent. It is why this is so right. It puts right the balance in relation to the timidity of the Minister of State in respect of the other amendments. We would not have talked at any length about this amendment, if he had shown himself to be reasonable on the other amendments.

He is going away for Christmas and the New Year, and something said by Burns about independence might be relevant. What we want is a little more freedom for Scotland. Burns said that freedom and whisky went together. I know that the Minister of State is not exactly a teetotaller and there is just a chance that he will be savouring some very fine malt when he gets up to Inverness. Let him consider the amendments that we have put down and let him see the error of his ways in respect of getting the balance right between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board. We might help him on this, if we discover at Report stage that the amendments which he has put down are the same as the amendments that we put down. But I do not think that I would advise my noble friend to take us into the Division Lobby at this late hour of the night on this important matter. It is something to which we really must come back.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I wonder whether we may have from the Minister of State the information which he promised us. We are all concerned about how the Minister of State will consent after his consultation, which will be very quick indeed. We have the Secretary of State with his four-and-a-half men, and if you take account of holidays that means effectively two-and-a-half men on duty at any one time. One can imagine how they will do this, and do it quickly. But there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that they will be allowed only £200,000 for their direct share in overseas publicity. How will this be determined? Will it be determined annually? And will the figure of £200,000 be supplementary or complementary? The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, could tell us the difference between "supplementary" and "complementary". If it is supplementary, it supplements; it is additional. Is it going to be additional, or will the £200,000 to be spent directly by the Scottish Tourist Board be taken out of the sum which would have been spent by the British Tourist Authority? In other words, do we gain £200,000 of freedom and independence, or do we lose £200,000 from the £2 million? I should like to know exactly how this will be determined. Will it be determined by the Treasury or by the BTA?

We have had a very interesting afternoon discussing these amendments. Now that we have reached the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? I know that the Committee would not wish me to dwell for too long on the matter; but the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has asked me two specific questions and I shall try to answer them for him. Each year, with the approval of Parliament, the Secretary of State allocates funds to the Scottish Tourist Board. The £200,000 will be additional. This sum is no part of the funding already provided by the British Tourist Authority. In other words, it is extra money and it will be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide from time to time what the allocation of funds to the Scottish Tourist Board may be.

The noble Lord asked me how the consultations were to take place and for what purpose the £200,000 would be used. As I explained earlier, at the beginning of each year the British Tourist Authority will make known its proposals for overseas promotion. The chairmen of the various national tourist boards, being members of the board of the British Tourist Authority, will have the opportunity to comment on those proposals. It is our belief that some of the proposals will be the better for a certain amount of supplementary support from the Scottish Tourist Board. In those cases, the Scottish Tourist Board will co-operate as closely as possible with the British Tourist Authority in order to ascertain how individual projects could the better be supplemented with their support. In certain cases the method of consultation can be quite wide-ranging. In other cases it may be fairly minor, depending on the type of project.

Clause 1 contains the two main operative provisions. Subsection (1) lifts the 1969 Act restriction on the Scottish Tourist Board's operating power, and in order to ensure that the board's activities outside the United Kingdom are properly co-ordinated, subsection (2) introduces a consent and consultation procedure. I believe that the Bill hinges on Clause 1. It is vitally important to the Bill, and the Committee should, I believe, give a warm welcome to it. At Second Reading nobody spoke against the Bill. It was welcomed by all sides of the House. I believe that the Committee stage has proved useful because it has given us an opportunity to probe and discuss in some depth a number of issues which have been causing concern to us all. Although I have not accepted any of the amendments, I have listened carefully to what has been said. I believe that the Government's proposals are still the best ones in the interests of Scotland and that this clause is vital to the Bill. Therefore I invite the Committee to agree it.

The noble Lord has suggested that during the Second Reading of the Bill nobody opposed Clause 1. That is quite true. We were happy in principle about the clause, despite the small amount of money which was entailed. The Minister must realise that although the helpful amendments which have been moved by me and by other noble Lords have been sympathetically dealt with, we have got nothing out of the Government. I hope the noble Lord has learned this evening that the Bill is not totally satisfactory and that the Committee has clearly expressed the view that the Scottish Tourist Board is not being given quite the independence, authority and opportunities that it should. We can only hope that when the Minister is in Scotland during the Recess he will absorb its atmosphere again and that he will come to the blinding realisation that we were correct. When, therefore, we reach the Report stage, or when the Bill returns here from another place, I hope the Minister will be willing to consider more seriously and sympathetically some of the points which have been made.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 8, leave out ("roads") and insert ("highway")

The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made a number of general comments in relation to this particular amendment. My view of the position is that roads legislation in Scotland has been added to piecemeal over a long period. The difficulty for the practitioner in finding out the relevant law has been quite remarkable. The object of this Bill is to try to bring together in one Bill all the provisions which relate to roads, and to make them consistent and reasonably clear and part of a single structure.

So far as the drafting of the Bill is concerned, those arrangements have been under the responsibility of a single draftsman for the whole Bill. As far as I know, the draftsman's father was not engaged on this matter; but I do know that when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland a good deal of work was done in the Scottish Office in preparation for this Bill—as I believe he mentioned on Second Reading. I should like to say how grateful the present Government are to him for all the work that was done as part of his responsibilities at that time. If we have not made as excellent use of his work as he would like, we have done our best to be worthy successors to him in this particular operation. I can certainly see that there is room for improvement in a Bill of this sort, and I am extremely grateful for the amendments which noble Lords in all parts of the House have seen fit to put down to the Bill and which we shall be very happy to consider. I am glad to say that some of the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his colleagues have made are acceptable to the Government, and I hope to be able to accept those in due course.

So far as this particular amendment is concerned, the word "highway" is one which has never had a very precise connotation. We are aiming to bring into the conception of "road" all the various types of public right of way that one can have, and the roads authority seems the right authority for dealing with roads. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to change this particular name from the Highway Authority to the Roads Authority. In Scottish legislation one finds a great number of names—roads, highways, streets and other things. Usually in a particular field of law if a different word is used the intention is to strike a different meaning; but one cannot be confident, for example, that a "road" and a "highway" under present Scottish legislation mean different things; often they will mean the same. Accordingly, it seems right to try to reduce the concepts in number and use the word "roads" to describe the authority responsible for these consistently throughout the Bill. I hope in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this particular amendment.

In the light of what my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said about whether this Bill was necessary, and that a much more reasonable thing would have been to produce a simpler Bill giving the additional powers which are contained, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, will remember that at Second Reading the tome to which my noble friend referred arose as the result of an answer which Lord Gray of Contin gave to me: that he could not at that time say exactly whether, when it was said that this was just codifying, there was not in fact a change, and that he would circulate more information. I must agree with my noble friend; so far as I was concerned it certainly arrived, but it did not arrive at such a time that I could make much use of it. In case the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, has any fears on the matter for the next stage of this Bill, I will give him this assurance: that I have no intention of making any use of it to search for yet more amendments.

The bulk of the amendments which are being put forward really are seeking to conform to what the introduction says, to codify and modernise. I will come back to that later on. The noble and learned Lord has said that the reason for putting "roads" in as a single word which will cover any other description that existed in the past is to make absolutely certain that no difficulties arise. I should like to ask him, has there been any occasion in the past where legislation has referred to "roads" or "streets" or "highways" which has led to any difficulty with any of the authorities carrying out their powers? In conversation at the tea-table the other day with one of his noble friends, she said, "I always understood that in the cities you talked about streets and in the countryside you talked about roads". I think that was probably as good a summary of the situation as you can get. I was for many years a member of a local authority. I do not think anybody ever raised with us any legal problem as to whether a street was a road or a road was a street. So there is something really important in what my noble friend Lord Ross says about whether the Bill is really necessary.

I hope we are going to get a better effort from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. What he is doing really is justifying this tome. I do not think there has been any justification in what he says. I have been looking again at his own amendment, which came after Second Reading, so they had forgotten all about it; they did not know about it in the Scottish Office. It is Amendment No. 162. If noble Lords will open their "hymn books" at Amendment No. 162 they will see that it is a fairly long amendment. It consists of four full pages of the Marshalled List, and all it is doing is getting rid of the word "highway" and putting in "road". I am perfectly prepared to bet, here and now, that before we have finished the Third Reading of the Bill we shall have another amendment with another list of "highways" that have to be erased and "roads" put in.

My noble friend is quite right. I have asked the Lord Advocate again, when have we had difficulties with all this diversity of descriptions of streets, roads, pavements, alleys, which are now all going to be lumped together, quite unjustifiably in my mind, with the word "roads"? When we get to the definition of "roads", I wonder whether someone will justify having any houses on roads, because they have got numbers and they are related to the road, but the houses are no longer part of the road. I wonder whether we shall search the Local Government Bill to see whether we have made sense of the changes that need to be made there from "highways" to "roads", "roads" now comprehending everything you can think of. Well, of course they have not imagined them all yet, but they will get round to it. I do not think it was necessary at all.

As the noble and learned Lord knows, much of this stemmed from the reorganisation of local government. I did not do that. It was the Tory Government of'1973 that reorganised local government in Scotland and gave us the much loved regions we have, with one region comprehending half the population of Scotland. We will come to that as well in relation to one of the amendments. I do not know whether any Minister sat down and thought about this point or whether it is because a draftsman who had been dabbling at this at various times over the past 10 years said, "Ah!, we have got something here", and then started to make a 147-clause, eight-schedule, Bill. As somebody said, "Is your work really necessary; is it worth while and is it going to simplify?" I do not think it is going to simplify at all. That is a sincere and honest feeling after spending quite a lot of time, more than I can afford, over this particular Bill.

I am not going to divide the Committee on this amendment, but I warn the Government that they have not finished with this Bill. I see the Chief Whip of the Government in this place. He realises, of course, that 70 amendments are down in the name of the Government. The amendment I mentioned, No. 162, and then No. 163, are pages and pages long—single amendments! So please do not blame the Scots for being a bit stick-in-the-mud about this. I like to see statutes clear, I like them to be readily understood, I like to see them well drafted. I question whether this Bill was ever necessary, and if it was necessary it should have been far better drafted than it is. In view of the fact that the Government are not going to change their mind it means that they are not going to look at it for the first time as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("list") to ("prepared") in line 11.

I join with the noble Lord in thinking that matters should be clear and plain. I shall do everything possible to achieve that result. The idea of the phrase in the brackets which the noble Lord wishes to leave out is that it will be easily referred to later in the Bill, because time and again this concept comes up. To set out the full description each time would make the Bill a great deal longer rather than shorter. This is a common technique and, I suggest, a simple, plain technique. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is a reasonable way to go about it.

It is a technique that I am beginning to question. It is unnecessary, here or elsewhere in the Bill.

I could have understood that explanation if it had cut down elsewhere. I would expect that thereafter all one would need to do is refer to the list. But right in the very first line of Section 2 the words "the list of public roads" are repeated again, so the words in brackets do not remove the need for reference to it. For that reason I agree with my noble friend that these words in brackets do not serve any useful purpose.

I have to respectfully disagree about that. As regards Section 2, or Clause 2, that is a different list. That is the list kept by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that list is also referred to later. That is the reason why it is mentioned.

It is not. The noble and learned Lord has not picked me up correctly. I said Section 2, not Clause 2. I should have said subsection (2), and it is the very first line, line 17, of that subsection, which reads:

"Subject to subsection (8) below, the list of public roads prepared by the local roads authority".

That is not the Secretary of State's list.

I am sorry; I thought the noble Lord was referring to Clause 2. So far as this is concerned, it is the subject of an amendment. The purpose of expressing it in this way in subsection (2) is to make it clear that what this list is to be—because one must start with this list—and what subsection (2) is requiring, is that what is on the existing list at the date the Bill comes into force will become the first list under the Bill. One needs, therefore, to pick up the existing situation—the situation as it exists when this Bill comes into force—in order to put in, for the first time, the list which is required in the Bill under subsection (1).

Will the noble and learned Lord therefore go further and indicate to us what the harmful consequences would be if my noble friend's amendment was accepted?

The harmful consequences would be that one would have to repeat the description, in full, of this list of public roads every time it occurs in the Bill; and it occurs quite a number of times.

No; one could of course do what would seem to be the straightforward thing and define a list of public roads in the interpretation clause, which, after all, is the easiest place to find it.

That is certainly another possibility, but it is not a question of leaving it out altogether; it is putting it somewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated on Second Reading, as I recall, that it seemed convenient to have interpretations at the beginning. This is a matter which is fundamental to the way the Bill is constructed. It seems very easy to slip in the reference point right at the beginning. I submit to your Lordships that it is a very convenient way, in this context, of achieving a fairly clear result.

I do not want to make this a duet between us, but the noble and learned Lord has misrepresented me. I said that in one of the Acts which are listed, and where the changes are taking place, the interpretation clause is at the beginning of the Bill, not that one found interpretations in other clauses at the beginning of a Bill. It seemed to me that the old way of having interpretation at the beginning of the Bill was easier to follow than having it right at the end of the Bill. It is much easier to turn back to, say, Clause 2 than to look for Clause 37, Clause 93 or, in the case of this Bill, Clause 143. That is what I said. I was not suggesting that we go back to the old method, although it seemed to be an advantage. I believe—and I have amendments down later on this issue of interpretation—that it will always make a Bill easier, if wording is used and people do not know exactly what it means, that they can turn to the interpretation clause to find the meaning. They should not have to search through different parts of the Bill to find different parts of the interpretation.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he says that we should get it done here and not in the interpretation clause, Clause 143. I do not know whether anyone has looked at that clause. I can tell your Lordships that it is a joke. It is the first interpretation clause that I have ever seen with powers in it. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has looked at the clause. Has he looked at the main interpretation clause? Is he satisfied with it? I can well understand why, if he has looked at it, he does not want to put anything else into it. It is such a mess. However, we shall come to that clause later.

Local authorities have been working with lists of roads for long enough. They already exist. But if there is a difficult way of doing it, the draftsmen have found it here. I do not commend it. I trust that the Lord Advocate will get someone to look at the drafting of this Bill between now and the next stage. I have never seen a worse Bill. However, the Lord Advocate is happy, and he is the man that counts. He is responsible for the draftsmen. They are employed by the Crown Office and he is the head of the Crown Office, so he accepts responsibility for everything that they do. He is satisfied: I am not. But who am I to quarrel with him on such a point? Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("for") to ("they") in line 14 and insert ("these").

The structure of this clause is that the roads authority is given the responsibility of management and maintenace. The purpose of the provisions to which the noble Lord has drawn attention is to give an explanation by way of illustration—although not exhaustively— of what that management and maintenance is to consist of. In my judgment. the phraseology employed is of the type that is perfectly common in similar Acts of Parliament. To take out the words in the manner that the noble Lord suggests would restrict the powers of the roads authority to the particular examples given. That would be to narrow the powers from what they are at present. I hope that that clarification is sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes.

What the noble and learned Lord says is not sufficient. Indeed I do not accept what he says. The noble and learned Lord says that such words are common in similar Acts of Parliament. Is it not time that the practice of putting in unnecessary words was stopped? I do not accept that the amendment would limit the powers of the local authority to exactly what is said in the clause. The noble and learned Lord should remember that we have the other clauses in the Bill to come, which considerably widen the provision far beyond what he says.

I think that the phrase,

"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",

is probably the dream answer of the draftsman. I do not know what the "subsection's generality" is. We shall return to this matter in clause after clause. I want to see Scottish legislation clear and not cluttered with jargon. I am not prepared to accept it when a Lord Advocate or any other Minister tells me that other Acts of Parliament of this kind have that wording. That is the trouble. They should not have. Acts of Parliament should be clear. Ordinary people and ordinary lawyers—not just Lords Advocate—have to read Acts of Parliament. That explanation is not good enough. We should start modernising the wording now. I had hoped that the Government could have done better, but I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 15, leave out ("reconstruct, alter, widen,")