Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 221 and 223. As is well-known and appreciated, the BBC is governed by its Royal Charter, which was renewed in 1996. As I indicated when we last considered this part of the Bill, some changes in procedures will be made in relation to appointments and annual reports reflecting the establishment of the Scottish parliament and executive. The Royal Charter provides that the Board of Governors of the BBC should include a national governor for Scotland, selected on the basis of his or her knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of the people of Scotland. It

3 Nov 1998 : Column 240

has been custom and practice for the Secretary of State to be consulted in advance of that appointment. When the Scottish executive is in place, the appointment of the national governor for Scotland of the BBC will be made after consultation with Scottish Ministers, as both noble Lords identified. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is right. That sort of consultation basically means someone who has the support of the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised the possible dangers--for instance, that some awful radical might want to seize more for BBC Scotland than the BBC might wish to concede on a UK basis and that pressure would be brought to appoint a "safe pair of hands", a phrase with which I am now familiar. I should have thought that the pressure to appoint a safe pair of hands could be more effectively applied under the present arrangements, whereby the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are members of the same Executive. It would be rather difficult to apply that sort of pressure when there are different executives, when the First Minister will be consulted and will give his view. It would be rather difficult for the Secretary of State for Culture, dealing with the head of what is effectively another executive, to be able to obstruct and thwart the nomination of the Scottish executive.

The Royal Charter provides that the annual report of the BBC shall be sent to the Secretary of State, who lays the report before both Houses of Parliament. That is the present arrangement. In future, the report, together with the annual review of BBC Scotland, will also be sent to Scottish Ministers, who will in turn lay those before the Scottish parliament--exactly the procedure envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I am sure that members of the Scottish parliament will take a keen interest in broadcasting in Scotland and will wish to debate it. It will be for the Scottish parliament to decide whether it wishes to invite members of the broadcasting community in Scotland to submit reports or appear before the parliament or a committee of it. My understanding is that broadcasters will be willing, indeed keen, to give evidence to the Scottish parliament.

For the Independent Television Commission, we intend to make provision through the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to secure that the annual report will be laid before the Scottish parliament as well as at Westminster. We shall similarly provide that the Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission is appointed only after consultation with Scottish Ministers.

I move to Amendment No. 222, which relates to Gaelic broadcasting. As we have said before, the promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland is clearly a matter of primarily Scottish interest. In practice, the funding is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in line with the usual arm's length approach to broadcasting the funding of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee is made through the Independent Television Commission. The function of funding Gaelic broadcasting will be transferred by the executive devolution order under Clause 59 to the Scottish Ministers, who will be answerable to the

3 Nov 1998 : Column 241

Scottish parliament. It will be open to them, subject to the agreement of the Scottish parliament, to vary the annual allocation of funds to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee.

I do not believe that the amendment would bring about any improvement or increased accountability for Gaelic broadcasting. By executive devolution, government funding for Gaelic broadcasting will be a Scottish responsibility, albeit within the unified regulatory framework for broadcasting for the United Kingdom. That is the key to the Clause 59 procedure, which is a means by which executive devolution is achieved within a framework where the function itself is reserved. I believe that that is the appropriate way to tackle the problem rather than to bring it on to the face of the Bill.

With those assurances, which I hope I have made as persuasively as I made them in Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating the Government's assurances on these three amendments and perhaps going a little further than he went in Committee.

Just as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, seemed flattered by the fact that I had picked up his amendments, I feel a little flattered by the words he said about me. We need to be careful not to have too much of a love-in between these Opposition Benches, or the Government Front Bench might become worried.

I am content with the explanation, although I still think it is a little odd that some matters have to be put on the face of the Bill while others can be dealt with by executive order. However, at this late stage of the Bill, the matter is not worth pursuing.

I looked carefully at the schedule which tells me what happens to orders. I notice that orders of this kind are Type A orders, which means that they will have to be approved by resolution of both Houses at Westminster and of the Edinburgh parliament. We shall therefore have an opportunity to debate these issues when they are brought forward by the Minister under Clause 59.

I am not sure that the noble Lord totally allayed my concerns with regard to Amendment No. 223 regarding the appointment of a national governor for Scotland. I was interested to hear that he recognised the phrase "a safe pair of hands". I remain a little concerned, although I am reassured by having his views on record that in the new circumstances it will be a great deal more difficult for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to decline to accept a nomination of the Scottish executive than it might be under the current situation, where the Secretary of State and the Culture Minister are members of one government and the matter can easily be resolved in the corridors of Whitehall. I understand that point. I suppose that in the real world, if there were a dispute, we would soon read about it in the newspapers, and I suspect that the Government would quickly be told that they were about to create a

3 Nov 1998 : Column 242

big issue in Scotland and that they should back off. Almost reassuring myself, adding to the Minister's reassurance, I am content and I look forward to the debates we shall have when these orders are, in the fullness of time, laid before your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 not moved.]

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 223A:

Page 85, line 39, leave out from ("authority") to second ("to") and insert ("with mixed functions or no reserved functions,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 224:

Page 86, line 25, leave out from ("Timescales") to end of line.

The noble Lady said: My Lords, the House may be surprised that I have returned to this matter when a somewhat similar amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was disagreed with in the Division at Committee stage. This amendment is slightly different in that "Timescales" have been left out; that is to say left in the reserved matters. I believe that the inclusion of them in the previous amendments may have been a sticking point with the Government and with some noble Lords. Having had an explanation of what the timescales are from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at the Committee stage (at col. 1331 of the Official Report of 27th July) I am persuaded that they should continue to be reserved matters.

As I am sure all your Lordships are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has announced his intention to introduce a Private Member's Bill next Session to do, as I understand it, virtually what this amendment does. But the reason for his Bill is the opposite of mine, according to a letter from him published in the Telegraph on Saturday 24th October. He would like to have British Summer Time in winter in England because he believes that it would lead to a reduction in crime, give more time for outdoor sports and help trade and tourism. He fears that the introduction of this will always be blocked by the Scots, who do not want it.

On the other hand, I am a Scot and live in the north of Scotland, where we found British Summer Time in winter quite intolerable during the experimental period between 1968 and 1971, when it was inflicted upon us. On the 21st December, the winter solstice, there is a difference of 42 minutes between the time of sunrise in London, which is at 8.04 and the time of sunrise in Aberdeen, which is at 8.46. There is another 22 minutes difference between the time of sunrise at Aberdeen and the time of sunrise at Lerwick, which is at 9.08. That means that with British Summer Time sunrise in Aberdeen would not be until 9.46 and sunrise in Shetland would not be until 10.08. I suspect that if faced with darkness until fourteen minutes to ten or eight minutes past ten in London, Londoners might not be quite so enthusiastic about summer time in winter.

3 Nov 1998 : Column 243

It is much more difficult to get up and get going in the morning when it is dark. The body's built-in clock rebels. No non-nocturnal animal in its right mind does a thing like that. I have heard that this can contribute to clinical depression.

The Government's opposition to this aspect of the amendment is very short-sighted. Far from being another nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom, this should help to avoid the break-up of the United Kingdom. If we Scots are contented we are very much less likely to wish to be independent from the United Kingdom than if we are unhappy, as we assuredly would be should the Government try to impose summer time on us in winter.

A report has been published in the past few days which suggests that if we had summer time all the year round, 100 fewer people per year would be killed on the roads. I am afraid that, sooner or later, the nanny Government will act on that report and inflict summer time in winter on Scotland, taking the line that nasty nannies take: "It's good for you, so you'll just have to learn to like it." I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page