|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As he points out, the basis of the Prayer is narrow. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I do not see the roles of the BBC coming to an end; they are just beginning. When the BBC has a strong and growing online system, is becoming an Internet service provider and goes into realms that neither it nor any of the users of these services could have expected of any broadcaster, we shall continue to ask questions as to what the role of a public service broadcaster, or any broadcaster, should be. I believe that those matters fall within the remit of a debate, not a Prayer to annul. Therefore, I have sought to restrict my remarks very closely. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing himself to the questions that I posed. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in preparing for Scottish devolution, it was recognised that there would be some UK or GB-wide public bodies with a remit which includes responsibility for devolved matters in Scotland. Section 88 of the Scotland Act provides the mechanism to designate such public bodies as "cross-border public authorities". The Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Specification) Order 1999 designated 65 public bodies as cross-border public authorities, including the British Library Board, Theatres Trust and the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
Designation as a cross-border public authority has the effect that ministerial functions in relation to the body do not transfer automatically to Scottish Ministers, as they would for bodies operating wholly in a devolved area. Instead, the Scottish Ministers have a right to be consulted on all appointments to the body and on the exercise of any functions in relation to the body which might affect devolved matters.
But these default arrangements are not suitable for every cross-border public authority, so Section 89 of the Scotland Act allows arrangements to be tailor-made for a particular body. This is the purpose of the present order in relation to the appointment and, in certain cases, removal of members of the British
All the bodies affected by this order have been consulted. They all support the provisions. Indeed, Section 89(3) of the Scotland Act provides that no recommendation shall be made to make an order unless the cross-border authorities have been consulted. The order is also in line with the concordat between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Scottish Executive covering consultation arrangements on all appointments of interest to the Scottish Executive.
The order cannot be recommended to Her Majesty unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. The order was agreed in another place on 20th March and approved yesterday by a committee of the Scottish Parliament. Formal approval of the order by the Scottish Parliament will be, presumably, on 6th April. This is the second such order. The first was approved last year and covered 30 cross-border public authorities.
Let me deal briefly with each of the three public bodies concerned. The British Library is the national library of the United Kingdom and the foremost centre for reference, study and bibliographical and other information services for both science and the humanities. The remit of the Theatres Trust UK is,
For the British Library and Theatres Trust, appointments are made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Scottish Ministers will be consulted on one member of the British Library's Board and one member of the Theatres Trust, who, in the view of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
Appointments to the NHMF are made by the Prime Minister on advice from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Prime Minister will consult Scottish Ministers on the appointment of the chairman and however many persons with Scottish connections--"by residence or otherwise"--are normally trustees at any one time. In Section 1 of the National Heritage Act 1980, consultation on the appointment of the chairman is required to take place with what are now the devolved administrations.
In addition, the Prime Minister is required to consult Scottish Ministers on the termination on grounds of misconduct of appointment of the chairman and any trustees with Scottish connections. Again, I am confident that Scottish interests will be fully represented in the work of the NHMF and the HLF across the United Kingdom.
The order makes sensible provision to ensure that these cross-border public authorities can continue to operate with an appropriate input and control for the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. The pre-devolution arrangements worked well, and UK and Scottish Ministers are happy to have these re-established as set out in the order.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving an explanation to the House, one that is far easier to understand than that given in another place. I trawled through the Official Report of proceedings there; I read twice, thrice and still felt that I had made no headway at all, but eventually got there. Certainly, I feel that the explanation given to this House was a lot more helpful.
In effect, we are asked to accept that this order provides a pragmatic answer to the question of how much consultation with Scottish Ministers is enough to maintain that fair balance between a representation of Scottish views about appointments and the delay that would be caused by seeking views on each and every appointment to bodies that represent the whole of Britain. We, on these Benches, would not oppose the making of the order and would accept that its purpose is to achieve that fair balance. The Minister has referred to the fact that consultation has taken place. I have spoken to two of the bodies concerned, and they reflect that and feel that they were able to put their views satisfactorily.
When the order was taken in another place, my honourable friend Mr Grieve sought assurances from the Minister with regard to the consultation upon the removal of members from the British Library Board and the Theatres Trust. I would be grateful if the Minister would repeat the assurances given in another place by his honourable friend Mr Howarth that in practice the Government would consult on the removal of appointees from both bodies.
I have two questions that were not fully covered during the debate in another place. The first relates to the issue of what is special knowledge of Scotland. The appointment of one member to each of the two bodies--the British Library Board and the Theatres Trust--will be made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport after consultation with Scottish Ministers. The appointee will be a person who appears to have "special knowledge of Scotland". Does that mean that the individual could be English--or any other nationality--living in England, but who has, say, a very detailed, academic knowledge of Scotland? What does the Government have in mind as to the meaning of "special knowledge of Scotland"?
My second question is with regard to the matter of a concordat that was mentioned in the debate in another place. In those discussions the Minister said that the order is in line with the separate discussions that the DCMS had with the Scottish Executive on an agreed concordat covering consultation arrangements on all appointments of interest to the Scottish Executive. Were those discussions only with the relevant Minister, Rhona Brankin, or were they widened to include other members of the executive?
Will any further orders be necessary for other culture, media and sport bodies under the Scotland Act 1998? The Library could not assist me on this point: will any comparable orders be required under the Government of Wales Act? We do not oppose the making of the order.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page