House of Lords
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Middle East: Quartet
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the role and future of the Middle East quartet.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the Government remain determined to do everything possible to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We believe the quartet still has an important role in achieving this.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Given the breakdown of talks on 26 January, in the last iteration, and given that one side to the talks has no confidence whatever in the representative of the quartet—to the extent that they will not even shake his hand at the meetings—and that the other side in the talks flagrantly disregards the representative’s deadlines for submissions and proposals, can the Government really stick to the view that they have complete confidence in the future of the quartet? Is my noble friend aware of President Sarkozy’s comment that the quartet is dead—
“Let’s stop kidding ourselves”?
Will my noble friend tell the House what proposals the Government have to put the quartet on a new footing under new leadership?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We all share my noble friend’s disappointment at the slowness of progress in the Middle East peace process and the difficulties that are being encountered—as well as at the suspension of the talks in Amman, although they have only been suspended and not abandoned altogether. However, I think that she is a shade harsh in her general judgment. We pay tribute to the efforts of Mr Blair and others in improving the situation on the ground in occupied Palestine, but one must be realistic: the quartet alone cannot achieve the progress that we all want to see. Such progress can happen only if the will is there, but the will is not present on all the necessary sides in the peace process to make progress along the road map. If the will is not there, the quartet cannot achieve the impossible.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does the noble Lord agree that the quartet is divided—for example over Syria, given Russia’s view on it—and that it has been ineffective, save marginally at the lower infrastructure level; but that we cannot kill it because there is no alternative, and one day there may be a role for it?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think that the noble Lord is realistic. The quartet is not in a position to achieve the magic progress that we want to see, but the moment may come when its usefulness can be developed. In the mean time, we retain confidence in it as a part of the mechanism for taking things forward. Clearly, however, many other aspects need to be improved and strengthened.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, how does the effect of the Iranian nuclear weapons crisis on Israel bear on the ostensible agenda of the quartet? Is there not a lack of reality in the timescale as regards the urgency of various matters? Will that have a bearing on the present agenda of the quartet?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is asking about the broader issue of Israel and Iran and the very tense situation that clearly exists. I think it was President Obama who, on becoming President, was advised that everything in the Middle East is connected with everything else. Israel’s concerns about Iran, and all our concerns about Iran’s attempt to move to nuclear weapons, are part of the Middle East imbroglio. However, we must not let that take our eye too much off the need for the Middle East peace process to go ahead and for the road blocks along that process—including the building of settlements, which is clearly a major obstacle—to be overcome.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, with the rate of Israeli settlement in Palestine continuing apace and apparently unchecked, in precisely what respect has the situation improved on the ground?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As far as settlements are concerned, it has not improved at all. On the contrary, although the Jerusalem municipality has told the British representatives who make constant representations that for the moment it does not plan any further settlements, or any further demolition in east Jerusalem either, the settlements seem to continue. So there has been no improvement there. I was referring to Palestine industry and enterprise and some beginnings—even in the miserable conditions of Gaza—of advance in enterprise, thanks to some noble and dynamic contributions by British businesses.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, if the Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, reach agreement in the coming weeks on constituting a technocratic Government with Mahmoud Abbas as both President and Prime Minister, will the British Government use their influence to deal directly with the Government who emerge from that process and not be impeded from doing so by any objections from elsewhere?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The answer is yes, provided that Hamas shows some readiness to conform to the quartet principles, renounces violence and plays a constructive role. Provided that that happens, we could then move forward, and certainly the British Government would use all their influence and support to ensure that that process did move forward.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, from my visit there last week, I have come away with the sense that some important changes are taking place. Indeed, on the Palestinian side, there is a sense of confidence which is perhaps partly to do with the application to the United Nations and other developments. However, is it not clear that the efforts of the quartet itself are resulting in little more than nugatory negotiations and arbitrary deadlines? Given that elections are now in the air so widely among the participants both inside and outside, would it not be better for the quartet to pull back and analyse how it could produce a strategy that over the next three to four years will produce serious negotiations, rather than to continue kicking at a door that will not lead it anywhere in the very short term?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think that my answer has to be the same as the one that I gave to my noble friend earlier. The quartet is part of the mechanism, but many other things need to change and improve. There is the question of the recognition of Palestine as a state. The British Government believe that Palestine has fulfilled most of the conditions for that although we think that the ultimate statehood will be acquired when the occupation ends and when peace is achieved. These things must all be pressed together. I do not think that it would be wise at this stage to say that the quartet must be put on the back burner and not play any role at all—it could play a role. At the moment, there are obviously major difficulties in the way.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I have just returned from a conference called by the Arab League in Qatar on the subject of Jerusalem. At the end of that conference a resolution supported by the Arab League was passed to ask the United Nations to try to stop Israel’s annexation and Judaisation of east Jerusalem. Will the British Government and the quartet support this move?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That is part of a jigsaw, the aims of which would certainly have our full support. The position is that after the suspension of the Amman talks, Mahmoud Abbas and others have made it quite clear that the aims are: border security, on which Israel is supposed to report back by the end of March on what it does; a freeze on the settlements, which certainly has not occurred; and that if neither of those things happens, then indeed the whole process will go back to the United Nations—and we shall continue to use our best efforts to make progress there.
Local Authorities: Standards
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact the new arrangements for monitoring standards in English local authorities will have on the incidence of vexatious and frivolous cases and on potential whistleblowers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Standards Board regime actively encouraged vexatious complaints, often for political point-scoring. Councillors were often put through a lengthy investigation process before the matter was resolved. A councillor should not be found to be in breach of the code of conduct if, in highlighting fraud, waste or incompetence, they do so in a proper way. Our reforms will enable councils to deal with complaints expeditiously, and require them to seek the views of an independent person.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her very helpful response. During the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, I referred to the particular case of Councillor Esmond Jenkins, who was pursued to the Standards Board for England after he had blown the whistle on corruption in Cotswold District Council. Does my noble friend recall that the Minister then responsible, our noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, rightly said that such complaints to the board could be petty, malicious, vexatious or politically motivated? I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating some of those points.
I have already established that the Standards Board for England spent in excess of £63,000 of taxpayers’ money on that case. Can my noble friend assure your Lordships' House that the replacement regime to maintain the standards of integrity and behaviour in local government will avoid wasteful expenditure on persecution of that sort? In particular, is she satisfied that councillors who investigate and expose wrongdoing will not be accused of bringing their authority into disrepute?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the changes we made to the standards committees and standards support were made, as the noble Lord will recall, as a result of concern in this House. Our thrust has always been to ensure that this matter is run at a local level so the decisions made on how the system is set up will be left to local authorities. But I assure the noble Lord that we will be monitoring what happens as a result of those changes and looking to see how local authorities are dealing with allegations about the conduct of councillors—just to avoid, we hope, the problems that he mentioned and to find out the views of councils about the new arrangements.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, has the noble Baroness had a chance to reflect on the recent High Court decision in the case of Bideford Council? Does not she agree that it is “vexatious and frivolous”—the words in the Question—when local authorities are taken to court for arranging voluntary sessions before council meetings where members are invited to say prayers, as we do in this House?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was a legal decision which was interpreted, I think, as part of European Union law. It is clear that councillors can voluntarily attend prayers if they wish. There is no compulsion on them to attend, but council authorities can have prayers out of the chamber if people wish to have them before a meeting.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the new legislation the sanctions being considered and imposed by local authorities are only as draconian as asking the leader of the group to have words with the offending member? Has my noble friend any observations as to how the sanctions can be more biting than those being imposed by a cross-section of councils that I have been observing?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think the noble Lord slightly underplays what the sanctions can be. There can be censure. If it is a trivial matter, it can be dealt with by the leader of the group. It can be much more seriously dealt with. It can be taken to the council for formal censure. Someone who is found to have transgressed can also be removed from a committee for a certain length of time. We have not allowed local authorities to suspend councillors as a result of such decisions, but I think we have put forward a perfectly reasonable set of sanctions.
Lord Tomlinson
As the noble Baroness has suggested that the genesis of this legal judgment was European, will she given an undertaking to write to me to explain precisely which part of European legislation is alleged to have been breached?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I said that I thought it was; if that is not correct, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps coming back to the issue, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right to say that the Standards Board did not fulfil the task in the way that it was thought that it would, but there are instances where action should be taken against councillors where they have behaved inappropriately. The noble Baroness mentioned monitoring. Can she give more substance on that? Will there be a review after a certain period of time so that we can see whether the new system is working? There need to be some safeguards for the public interest on this.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the impact assessment for the new arrangements on standards provides for a review within three to five years. That will take into account all the matters that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Devolution: Wales
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to resolve issues arising from the devolution of powers to the National Assembly for Wales.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the National Assembly for Wales is now able to pass laws in all 20 devolved subjects. The Commission on Devolution in Wales—the Silk commission—is looking at how the Welsh Government can be made more accountable for what they spend and at any modifications to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Welsh devolution settlement to work more effectively.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I thank the Minister for his reply. With an increasing number of powers being devolved to the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and the Parliament in Scotland, what means are there to inform us of what decisions are taken at that level in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland? Moreover, with increasing devolution, what role does the Minister see for this House when it is composed of Members from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, there are regular exchanges at official and ministerial level where information is given as to legislation passing through this Parliament which has relevance for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there are close links the other way. With regard to parliamentary and assembly exchanges, the Calman commission, on which I sat, thought that it would be advantageous if there was a greater flow of information between parliaments and assemblies, but recognised that that would be a matter for the parliaments and assemblies and not for government. On the role of your Lordships' House in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it clearly has a role in examining matters which in the case of Wales are non-devolved. We have done so since 1999 and I can imagine that we will continue to give it the scrutiny that we would expect of a revising Chamber.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, will the Minister accept that, whereas the outcome of the referendum almost a year ago to this week was quite clear-cut, the degree of devolution in various portfolios remains more unclear? In Wales, unlike Scotland, a portfolio is not devolved in its entirety but is dependent on interpretation of legislation. In order for people to understand better how the devolution settlement is working, will he arrange for this to be reviewed so that we might have more clear-cut devolution that is better understood by civil servants, by the press and media, and particularly by the electorate?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I recall taking through your Lordships' House prior to the referendum an order in which we sought to try to bring together all the different parts which had been the subject matter of legislative competence orders over a number of years with the objective of achieving greater clarity. However, I note what the noble Lord said. The Silk commission perhaps gives an opportunity for some of these issues to be aired. Obviously, the Government will have to consider what that commission proposes in due course.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, when the Government established the Commission on Devolution in Wales—the so-called Silk commission—it was surprising to learn that reform of the Barnett formula was excluded from its remit, despite it being a flagship manifesto commitment of both coalition parties. Are the Government still committed to reform of the Barnett formula and, if so, when will it happen?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will reflect that the Barnett formula has implications for all parts of the United Kingdom and therefore it would not have been appropriate for the Silk commission to look at it in relation to Wales in isolation. That is why the Calman commission, looking at Scottish devolution, did not feel able to look at the Barnett formula. This Government have indicated that, while there is a case for looking at the Barnett formula, it is important that we first bring the finances of the United Kingdom under control. That is a precondition for any movement on the Barnett formula. For noble Lords who are keen to talk about the Barnett formula, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill which I very much hope will be debated later this evening.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
My Lords, one of the remaining issues after more than a decade of devolution is the dire state of the Welsh economy after the Welsh Labour Government have ruled the country. They have got rid of the Welsh Development Agency, which has cost us a great deal, and one Welsh academic has described it as,
“the worst policy decision made in Wales in living memory”.
Does my noble and learned friend agree with that verdict?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not in a position to agree with that, not having read that particular report. Clearly the economy of Wales is a matter in which your Lordships’ House has a legitimate interest, concerning, as it does, both devolved and non-devolved matters. I understand that on St David’s Day later this week the House of Commons will be debating Welsh affairs generally, and I strongly expect the economy to dominate and not least the Welsh Development Agency and the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that, although as a constitutional precept this Westminster Parliament can, even in relation to any matter delegated to any one of the constituent parliaments, still legislate as it would wish in relation to any devolved area, in relation to Scotland some 14 years ago a convention was kindly agreed to the effect that this House would not dream of doing that unless so specifically requested by the Scottish Parliament? Particularly now in the context of the added powers enjoyed by Wales since the referendum, will such a convention be considered by Her Majesty’s Government in relation to Wales?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I think that the legislative consent Motion, originally described in Scotland as the Sewel convention after the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who announced it, has worked well in practice. It is my understanding that if legislation which has implications for Wales is brought before your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons, it will be the subject of a similar convention. After each Queen’s Speech there is an obligation on the Secretary of State for Wales to consult the National Assembly for Wales about UK government proposals that may have an impact on Wales, not least since the further devolution on devolved matters.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, loath as I am to be in disagreement with my colleague on the Front Bench so far as concerns the Barnett formula, I say to the Minister, “Review the Barnett formula but don’t rush it”.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hear the noble Lord and he may wish to make that point in the debate later.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As regards the anomalies in relation to Welsh devolution and some of the problems arising from Scottish devolution, which we will be discussing at length later today, as well as the West Lothian question, on which the Government have set up a commission, would those matters not all be better dealt with if we were to look at the English dimension and devolution within or to England?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I think that there has been some history of that, not least pioneered by the Government of whom the noble Lord was a member. I do not seem to remember that there was huge enthusiasm for it in the north-east of England, but it is still a very pertinent point and one which I am sure will be raised again in debates on this issue in the future.
Schools: Curriculum
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to prevent the booklet Pure Manhood: How to Become the Man God Wants You to Be being used as part of the school curriculum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government take the issue of homophobia in schools very seriously. This and other forms of bullying or discrimination are of course covered by the Equality Act 2010. However, in passing the Equality Act, curriculum materials were excluded, as a ban could inhibit classroom debate and the illustration of different viewpoints. We have no plans to change the position reached in 2010.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, can the Minister then tell us what specific actions the Government might consider to prevent the distribution in any school of literature that is clearly homophobic, undermines HIV prevention campaigns and is likely to incite further homophobic bullying?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the Government are extremely clear that material used for the purpose of inciting homophobic bullying would be completely improper. The Government would want to take action; it would fall foul of the Equality Act and various other pieces of legislation. The question is whether we should ban all materials, whatever they are, to which any of us individually might take exception. The position that was reached in 2010 on the Equality Act seems to me right. It draws a distinction between how children are taught and what goes on in schools—and it is clear that there should not be that kind of behaviour—and the use of different kinds of material from which, used properly, people could conclude that material of the sort my noble friend mentioned was full of all sorts of errors of the kind to which he referred.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, have I been wrongly under the impression that in this country we no longer ban books or, indeed, burn them? If equality legislation, while enacted in the name of social progress, has the effect of dragging us back to that illiberal state of affairs, may there not be a case for reviewing the relevant aspects of the legislation?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The point that I was trying to make—perhaps not very clearly—was that the precise point reached about curriculum materials in connection with the Equality Act in 2010 was that it would not lead to the conclusion which the noble Lord and I would want to avoid: that is, that materials to which individuals might take exception would be banned. We absolutely do not want to get to a point where that happens; those days—from whatever point of view that is taken—are fortunately past. Because of the exemption in the Equality Act, that situation does not arise.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, is not using this particular document in schools not completely contrary to the department’s guidance, which bans the use of inappropriate materials in sex education classes? In a country where three young men have recently been jailed for distributing leaflets promoting hatred of homosexual people, is it not clear that this document is inappropriate and therefore against the department’s guidance?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My noble friend is right that the Government issue clear guidance as to what materials are appropriate. If parents, pupils or others are concerned about the use to which particular materials are put, then they have every right to complain to the school, to us, or to the YPLA in the case of an academy. Ofsted can have a look, and we can take a view as to whether the material is being used inappropriately. If the material to which both my noble friends refer were being used to make the point that this kind of view is a minority view, that would seem to be a perfectly proper use to which it could be put.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I think it is important to clarify this. Is the Minister aware that the Explanatory Notes written by his own department to accompany the Equality Act made it clear that the curriculum is covered by the Act? This would obviously outlaw any activity—such as the document we have been talking about this afternoon—which could lead to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or potentially encourage homophobic bullying. Can he please clarify once and for all the status of this document? A public clarification on this could, perhaps, lance the boil of some of the controversial debate taking place on this subject .
Lord Hill of Oareford
I hope I have explained, but if I have failed I will try to make it clearer. My understanding is that there is a clear distinction between what is able to be taught in schools and teaching that encouraged homophobic bullying or inappropriate behaviour of any sort, which would clearly fall foul of a range of different pieces of legislation. That is clearly wrong and we would deplore it. However, the ban on that kind of behaviour and what is done in lessons does not extend to particular source material. For example, there may be people who think that the “Merchant of Venice” as a script, a text or a document encouraged anti-Jewish sentiment. Should that be outlawed? No, it clearly should not. That is the distinction I am seeking to draw between the use to which materials are put and the materials themselves.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, has the Minister read the book and does he have a personal view on it?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As it happens, I have read the material to which the noble Lord referred. Many views expressed in it are not ones to which I would subscribe. However, there are many pieces of information, material and literature that contain views to which I do not subscribe, and I do not have a great desire to ban people who hold views different from mine.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, is it not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to ask parents or others who object to homophobic material being used in schools to apply to Ofsted or take action under the Equality Act?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am sorry; I did not hear the beginning of that question.
Lord Avebury
The noble Lord implied in an earlier answer that the only remedy that a parent had if they objected to the use of homophobic material in the classroom was to apply to Ofsted or bring proceedings under the Equality Act. Is that not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I hope that I said that there was a range of routes. Those options are at the extreme end of the routes. Complaints may also be made to the school, the governing body and the department, and to the YPLA on behalf of the department.
St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield (Boundary Change) Order 2012
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the draft order laid before the House on 16 January be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 February.
Public Services (Social Value) Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scotland Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is delighted to return to Committee on the Scotland Bill. It seems some time since we discussed these matters—and indeed it is, so we are glad of the opportunity to debate this important piece of constitutional legislation.
The amendments I will move and speak to today are probing in nature. Amendments 44B, 45A and 45B seek to explore the apparent inconsistency between the names and the appointment processes of the Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner and the BBC Trust member for Scotland as they are set out in the Bill. Noble Lords had the benefit of a debate that took place in Committee on 2 February 2012 on Amendment 44A, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Sewel in an attempt to identify the reason for these apparent differences. I shall return to the Hansard report of that debate shortly; I give the Minister notice that I will draw on the words of his colleagues in the debate to support the amendments that I have tabled.
I will say also that I welcome Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I put my name to it as it exactly replicates an amendment tabled in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Tom Greatrex, but not debated because of insufficient time.
Amendments 44B and 45A amend the title given in Clause 22 to the new commission role from the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” to the,
“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.
I recognise that in itself this is a minor change to the Bill, but it raises a wider point about the consistency of the new roles for Scotland that are created by this Bill. The proposal for the change in title is derived directly from the format established in Clause 20 with the,
“BBC Trust member for Scotland”—
not the “Scottish BBC Trust member”. We believe that there should be consistency in the Bill in the naming of the new executive roles in Scotland and we ask the Minister why the decision was taken to use a different configuration for the title of the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner”.
The point about inconsistency becomes more important with the issue raised by Amendment 45B. The appointments process for the BBC Trust member for Scotland is that:
“A Minister of the Crown must not exercise without the agreement of the Scottish Ministers functions relating to selection for a particular appointment”.
However, the appointments process proposed for the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” is in,
“the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer”,
in consultation with Scottish Ministers. This is the exact point that my noble friend Lord Sewel raised in the debate on 2 February. I am looking now at the Official Report and the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in seeing off my noble friend’s amendment. She said that,
“broadcasting remains a reserved matter”.—[Official Report, 2/2/12; col. 1785.]
So does the role of the Crown Estate Commission. She went on to say:
“It is our view that this”—
my noble friend’s amendment—
“does not give the Scottish Government sufficient involvement in the appointment process. Securing the agreement of the Scottish Government is the appropriate way of involving them in the appointment process for the BBC Trust member for Scotland. The existing provision gives the Scottish Government an important and appropriate power and the UK Government do not wish to weaken this. I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment”.—[Official Report, 2/2/12; col. 1786.]
I draw exactly on that argument and wish to apply it to the appointment of the new Scottish commissioner for the Crown Estates.
Amendment 45B brings the appointments process for the Scottish commissioner closer into line with that of the BBC Trust member by proposing that Scottish Ministers should make the recommendation,
“with the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer”.
These are not issues on which I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I raise them in an effort simply to elicit further information from the Minister about the reasons for these inconsistencies. I am fully prepared to accept that there may be good ones, but I cannot for the life of me at the moment think of what they are, but I wait with bated breath.
I would also like to speak in support of Amendment 45, which replicates a provision tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West to probe the appointments criteria intended for the new role of the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner. At present, there has been no discussion and no detail presented about the sort of qualifications expected of this important role. I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord what conversations the Government have had with the Crown Estate Commission with regard to the proposed new role and the appointments process and qualifications expected. In anticipation of this debate, I had inquiries made of the commissioner’s office as to what qualifications would be expected. With all due respect to the answer I received, it did not make it any clearer to me exactly what would be expected of a commissioner, never mind the one who represented Scotland.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I want to address Amendment 45, to which the noble Lord has just referred. This amendment inserts into Clause 22 a commitment to ensure that before a person finds himself or herself in the role of Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland, that person should be well qualified to do the job. The reason for this is that the resources and responsibilities of the Crown Estate Commission in Scotland are very great—its value is believed to be about £207 million—and I understand that last year, its revenue surplus was more than £9 million, to which the Treasury was entitled under the Civil List Act 1952. The actual Crown Estate is very considerable in Scotland, and has many responsibilities for farms, forests and estates, some of which have many sites of special scientific interest. But the responsibilities do not stop there.
The various Crown regalia include the areas on the coast between high and low tide, and it is no surprise that the Crown Estate has the rights to the foreshore and the seabed, as well as rights for minerals and for salmon fishing. The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, may be one of the few in this House who will be aware that in Orkney and Shetland, which he used to represent as an MP, the Crown Estate had absolutely no salmon rights at all. This is because in the past feudal law did not apply there, but udal law did. However, I must say that the Crown Estate has been extremely busy elsewhere, and is actively helping to develop ports and harbours which will benefit the tourist industry which is so important to Scotland. It has, in addition, many major investments in renewable energy, and may invest up to £20 million more during the next few years.
I have a very high regard for the Crown Estate commissioners and wonder whether it might be appropriate to recognise in this legislation their expertise in carrying out their important duties. At present, no detail is put forward in the Bill relating to the qualification of the person who might be appointed. This probing amendment would ensure that the holder of this office will remain highly qualified. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, for adding their support to this amendment.
It has not escaped us that the Secretary of State for Scotland recently made a significant statement about the Crown Estate. He established a coastal communities fund, a grant-giving body, which comes into effect from April. He is hoping for innovative bids. This is funded from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. The fund is UK-wide and relates to charities, businesses, social enterprise and local organisations. It allows for the support of economic development relating to the environment, education and health. I understand that £4 million will be allocated every year in Scotland. That is an indication of revenues raised in Scotland being put to very good use. Is it not the case that, with the Crown Estate Commission having such an important role, the person who looks after its interests should be properly qualified? If the Minister in his wisdom considers this amendment is not strictly necessary, I hope that he will give us all satisfactory reassurances.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. This may appear to be simply a matter of terminology, but a very important point is being made and it is not one just of consistency. The use of the phrase “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” in the Bill implies that there is a Scottish Crown. It is not a Scottish Crown estate; it is the Crown Estate in Scotland. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, makes that clear by suggesting that the commissioner should be referred to as the “Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.
That is deeply worrying and I do not know what is going on in the Scotland Office. This sloppy attention to language is creeping in. It has a sort of nationalist feel about it. I should check with the clerk that it is within the rules of order to refer to the Crown here, but it might be appropriate to point out that the English Crown was taken over by the Scottish Crown in 1603 in a reverse takeover.
On an issue related to this use of language, the First Minister the other day referred to how after independence there would still be a United Kingdom, which is absolute nonsense. The United Kingdom was created in 1707 when the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
It is nice to have something on which to disagree with the noble Lord. In 1603, we had the union of the Crowns. In 1707, we had the union of the Parliaments. The kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 because the United Kingdom was created. Therefore, it is illiterate as well as misleading to suggest that there would still be a United Kingdom. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would cease to exist. Whether or not the monarch went on to become the head of Scotland as head of state, the relationship would be similar to that enjoyed by Canada and Australia, but it would certainly not mean that the United Kingdom continues. For many people this may seem a kind of historical fact, but it is very important that we understand this, particularly when we have people in high office who seem determined to mislead people. I repeat that if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, there will be no United Kingdom. I do not know what a kingdom represented by England, Ireland and Wales would be called.
To return to the subject of the amendment, the use of the terminology “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” is wholly wrong, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which seems entirely sensible and very necessary.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
My Lords, I am not certain that I fully agree with my noble friend.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
Indeed. Let us try to identify what we are talking about. The Scottish Crown Estate is a pre-union institution. It was put together over many hundreds of years, developed particularly by King James IV, and one of the things that Scotland brought to the union. Therefore the reference to a Scottish Crown Estate commissioner sounds wholly correct. As regards the BBC—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I hate to mention this, but since then we have had the union of the Crowns and the union of the Parliaments. When the Scottish Crown Estate came into that union, it became part of the United Kingdom with a single monarch, and it is the Crown Estate in Scotland. I know that the noble Earl has very considerable historical roots, but we have to use the terminology that is appropriate for our time. Does he not agree?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
No, I do not. No matter what the noble Lord says, the Scottish Crown Estate existed. I was going to make a point about the BBC. That is undoubtedly a British, 20th century creation, and therefore the idea of a BBC Trust member for Scotland is quite appropriate, but I do not think it is right to enter into the pretence that the Crown Estate is a British institution in Scotland.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, I wonder whether I can clarify the history on this. The union of the Crowns in 1603 formed the kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was formed in 1800 when a separate treaty with Ireland was also brought in. That gets the history absolutely correct.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden
My Lords, I wish to intervene in this debate particularly in relation to Amendment 45, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The qualifications of the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland are absolutely vital. I have a certain amount of knowledge of this, having worked with four of the most recent Crown Estate commissioners for Scotland. The most important thing to remember is that they have to have an extremely good knowledge of farming and to know the countryside inside out. I am not so keen on what my noble friend has put in about the “law of Scotland”, but I am sure that all good farmers know about that. The last three Scottish commissioners have all been practical farmers, people who know what is going on on the land. That, so far as I am concerned, is the most important part of what we are now discussing.
In the past few years, two of the recent members from Scotland have become first commissioners for the Crown Estate. However it is decided who should be the Scottish commissioner, one must bear in mind that if someone is very good, they will probably go right to the top. Although I am happy to see changes made to bring the Scottish Parliament more into the loop, if you like, we have had a good example recently. We do not need to look at the crystal, we have the book. We have these experienced men who have carried out their work on behalf of the Crown Estate extremely well. I for one would urge a little bit of caution as to how the person is chosen.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
I do not for one moment want to contribute to the history lesson but can contribute on the basis that I served on the Crown Estate for eight years. I was actively involved when commissioners from England, Scotland or Wales were appointed to the board of the Crown Estate and can assure noble Lords that it takes the process of appointment very seriously indeed. Advice is taken on the process itself, but it is a deliberate policy of the Crown Estate to appoint someone of stature from Scotland, who is going to contribute on behalf of Scotland, has a good understanding of the Scottish rural and fisheries scenes, and as far as possible will build a good relationship with the Scottish Parliament. I am reasonably relaxed about the precise qualifications that the amendment suggests. It is quite possible to encourage a CPD programme, once the commissioner has been appointed, to ensure that the commissioner is fully equipped to represent all the interests in Scotland.
I should just add that the Crown Estate has been very active in investing in Scotland. The whole commission is very committed to the Scottish agenda and will no doubt continue to be committed to it. I will also correct an earlier comment—the Crown Estate certainly has fish-farming interests in both Orkney and Shetland. I have visited both of them on a number of occasions wearing my Crown Estate hat and tried to build reasonable relationships with the fishing communities there.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has talked about fishing in Scotland, and my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie talked about the Crown Estate Commission being set up before the Act of Union. There are some areas of the foreshore of Scotland and some fishing areas that do not belong to the Crown Estate because of historical precedent.
Lord Lyell
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his amendment and strongly support it. I had the honour to be the apprentice of the Earl of Mansfield, who was not just Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland but first commissioner for the United Kingdom, which shows that Scotland is often best throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that what my noble friend has said in the course of this discussion will be taken on board and that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept this very wise piece of advice.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been an interesting and useful curtain-raiser to our debates today and important points have been made. I do not intend to go down the history-lesson route but I will deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. It is an opportunity to explain why different terminology and a different process of appointment have been used. Quite clearly, there is genuine need for clarification of that matter and I hope I will be able to do that.
I will first take the issue of the qualification of the person who will be appointed as the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner. I thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his amendment. When I was Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, I had many dealings with the Crown Estate on issues of udal law, not least as to whether certain marina berths should have charges levied on them by the Crown Estate, or whether slipways passed over land that belonged to the Crown Estate or to the udal landowner. Some I won, some I did not. However, it indicates the breadth of the work the Crown Estate undertakes, including fish farming and marinas. Inshore and offshore renewable developments are, of course, becoming increasingly important within the area covered by the Crown Estate.
The position of the Crown Estate commissioner requires experience of operating at a senior board level as well as knowledge of one or more of the business sectors and activities in which the Crown Estate operates. These points were very forcibly made by my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden and by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who obviously speaks from his own experience of having been a Crown Estate commissioner.
The fact that my noble friend’s amendment relates specifically to land management and law would put an unnecessary restriction on who could be appointed. Of course, as we have already heard in this debate, there are areas of the Crown Estate’s business other than property or law with which it may well be an advantage for an appointee to have familiarity. The Bill provides for the person who should be appointed as a Scottish Crown Estate commissioner to have knowledge of Scotland and conditions there, but that person might in addition have a much broader range of experience and expertise that he or she can bring to the board. There might also already be commissioners on the board with expertise and experience in the areas specified by the amendment.
On the second leg of my noble friend’s amendment—the experience of the functions of the Crown Estate—I think it is fair to say, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will correct me if I am wrong, that few if any Crown Estate commissioners when appointed had direct experience of the functions of the Crown Estate under the 1961 Act. The right person for the job will need to have knowledge of Scotland and other relevant skills and experience. I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is important to achieve a balance of appropriate expertise on the Crown Estate board without placing undue restrictions or stipulations that could well rule out people who might otherwise be suitable candidates. I certainly think that the spirit of my noble friend’s amendment is in seeking to ensure that those bits of experience were brought to bear, but I hope he recognises that it will be impossible through the appointments process to have regard to other fields of experience as well if we put on restrictions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister mentioned the appointments process, but is there a clear understanding or requirement that the process must be carried out according to the principles of public appointments throughout the United Kingdom? I know that there are growing fears in Scotland, because of the dominance of the First Minister and the way in which he seeks to impose his views on institutions and organisations, that it is vital that there is a properly constituted appointments process for all public appointments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I certainly believe that there should be transparency in the appointments process. Of course, we will come on to the actual mode of appointment of the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner, which would involve consultation with Scottish Ministers. It is fair to explain why, in terms of nomenclature and mode of appointment, we have different arrangements for the Crown Estate commissioner as opposed to BBC Trust members, for example.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I should say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I think he was asking for rather more than that. I think he was asking for an assurance that the appointment would be subject to the normal Nolan rules and procedures, not just transparency.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I give way to the noble Lord, who may be able to shed light on this.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
As the first Crown Estate commissioner who will be appointed under Nolan rules, I can say that those rules apply absolutely to the appointments to the Crown Estate. It is a very open and transparent process and, in Scotland, an agency would be used and it would be publicly advertised to try to attract the best people to that post. If there are those who are considered appropriate, the agency would try to approach and encourage those with suitable skills to apply for the position.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. Indeed, the commissioners are appointed under the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments code. I hope that that gives the assurance sought by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth—but maybe not.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can we have assurances that, after the Bill is enacted, they will continue to be appointed under the Nolan code? A lot of us fear—and this applies to the Crown Estate commissioner and even more to the BBC Trust representative—that if there is any undue political interference in that appointment, a lot of people in Scotland would have grave concern.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, there is no intention to change the manner of appointments under the Office of Public Appointments code. However, I will come on to talk about the consultation process that is due to take place, which by its very nature, as it is between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Ministers, will have a political dimension to it. One of the purposes of appointments under the Office of Public Appointments code is to ensure that there is indeed transparency and open competition and to achieve, as well, a balance of skills and backgrounds and avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
The amendment would change “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” to,
“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.
Perhaps I may explain to my noble friend that “Scottish” is not intended to qualify “Crown”, or indeed to qualify the two words “Crown Estate”, but to qualify the three words “Crown Estate Commissioner”. There are Crown Estate commissioners and therefore “Scottish” is the adjective to be applied to them. Unless we put commas in, I am not quite sure how we could make it clearer than that.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
But the problem about “Scottish” being used as an adjective to qualify three words, or two words, is that it is not at all clear. It is extremely ambiguous as to whether the individual has to be Scottish and, if so, what definition is being applied. I think, for example, of the Duke of Atholl, who might be said to be Scottish but who spends practically no time in Scotland. Admittedly, his knowledge of Scotland may be quite considerable, but what does Scottish mean? I remember having a discussion about this with the Lord Lyon when I was gazetted. He claimed that I was Scottish because I had a Scottish name. Frankly, this is not sufficiently clear and the proposed amendment is much clearer.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the position is that it must be a person who knows about conditions in Scotland as they relate to the functions of the commissioners but it does not say that the person has to be of Scottish ancestry or indeed has to have a Scottish name. As we have already discussed and debated, they may have a number of other qualities and it should not be restricted simply to a knowledge of land management or the law. If we were to start to pin it down more than that, we would start to get into difficulties as we might be excluding people who have much more to offer and who have a lot of potential. Clearly, my noble friend is not satisfied, but if he has a better wording—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am a seeker after truth here, but the intervention of my noble friend illustrates the absurdity of the wording. It never occurred to me that “Scottish” would apply to the commissioner. What is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which is,
“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,
gives absolute clarity that this is the person who will be responsible for Scotland in the Crown Estate. My concern related to the fact that it was suggesting that it was the Scottish Crown Estate whereas my noble friend thinks it might be the Scottish commissioner. Therefore, we have in this debate illustrated why the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is absolutely right. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but the problem with,
“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,
is that it would suggest that the Crown Estate commissioner’s role was restricted to Scotland. That is not the case. The person is expected to play a part in the board as a whole and the person's responsibility should not be physically restricted to Scotland. That is why we believe that to use the,
“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,
would restrict the role which that person could play on the board. That would be a very unfortunate thing to do. As we already heard, some of the previous Crown Estate commissioners who had a Scottish remit have gone on to be the first Crown Estate commissioner. It would be very disappointing indeed if we were to use a terminology that suggested that this person could not actually contribute to the work of the board when it related to matters outwith Scotland—or furth of Scotland, if I can use that expression.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If my noble and learned friend will allow me, if that argument stands then how have we managed to get away with the present incumbent being called the Scottish commissioner?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am not sure that we are getting away with it. I am actually trying to propose that it is the commissioner who will have knowledge about conditions in Scotland. There is a distinction, if one chooses to reflect for a moment—
Lord Maxton
If you follow the logic of the argument that the noble and learned Lord has just put, it implies that the representative for Scotland on the board of the BBC could contribute only if the discussion was about Scotland. That is nonsense and we all know it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I shall explain. The BBC Trust is constituted in a very different way and using the expression “the BBC trustee for Scotland” makes sense in that context. The amendment would not affect the appointments process—
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland for giving way. When I came into the Chamber of your Lordships’ House today, the Advocate-General for Scotland was answering a Question about Wales.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Because I have been asked to answer to your Lordships' House on matters relating to the Wales Office, as indeed I am asked to answer on matters relating to the Scotland Office, although I am not a Scotland Office Minister, and on matters relating to the Attorney-General’s Office as well. It would be unfortunate if it were suggested that the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland was only for Scotland and did not have responsibilities. To answer the noble Lord’s point, I do not exercise any functions as Advocate-General for England because it does not have an Advocate-General.
Lord Sewel
Would a way out be to change it to the “Crown Estate Commissioner from Scotland”?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, the Duke of Atholl may not actually have come from Scotland but may have had a lot to contribute. If someone has a bright idea that squares all these circles, I would be interested to hear from them.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, would perhaps “Crown Estate Commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland” solve all the problems?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lady’s suggestion certainly sounds much more promising. It could mean that we were not putting an artificial restriction on the role that that person could play on the board as a whole. As other noble Lords have indicated in this debate, the contribution made by the Crown Estate commissioner who currently has responsibilities of a Scottish nature has been very important to the overall working of the board. If we were to limit it by territory, there are parts of the United Kingdom where the Crown Estate does not necessarily have any activity and therefore it would become very unfortunate. I shall reflect on what the noble Lady has said. It was a helpful suggestion that reflects the fact that the person ought to have a knowledge of Scotland and be able to make a contribution on it, but they should also have a broader expertise that they can bring to the work of the board. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend so frequently, but his argument needs a bit of shoring up. As I understand it, the argument is that if the Crown Estate commissioner were the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland, he would not be able to participate on the board because he would appear to be concerned solely with Scottish interests. Can I take it, then, that the Government are planning to change the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland? On my noble and learned friend’s argument, that would imply that the Secretary of State for Scotland could not participate in Cabinet on matters that were across the range. That is an absurd argument, and my noble and learned friend might at least indicate that he will go away and think about it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to my noble friend for the shoring up. The very fact that we have had this debate on the wording suggests that if we had proposed something else, I can imagine that he would have been one of those saying, “Of course, you mean that this person can make a contribution only in respect of Scotland and that is not acceptable as that person needs to have a wider remit”. As I indicated to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, her suggestion is worthy of further consideration and I shall consider it. If it answers the key point, which is that the person should have knowledge of Scotland and should not be restricted in terms of their qualifications—the broad totality of what is required for the board should be a factor in that person’s appointment, but the person might also have a special responsibility for Scotland or particular interests there—then that might well address the need without being unduly restrictive or indeed giving a misleading description of what that person’s role would be. I thank the noble Lady for that suggestion, to which I will most certainly give consideration.
Because of that wider responsibility, it is important that the appointment of all commissioners should be made by the sponsoring Minister, in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I reassure noble Lords that he will make a recommendation for the appointment of this particular commissioner only after consulting Scottish Ministers and listening carefully to what they say. That appropriately balances the need for both a Scottish interest and a UK-wide perspective on the appointment process.
There is particular concern over why there has been a different process for that appointment from that for the Scottish member of the BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has a different constitution from the Crown Estate. Under its charter, the BBC has obligations to broadcast to all parts of the United Kingdom and to have a member of its trust for each of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. That is very distinct from the position of the Crown Estate, which has no such requirements. Indeed, as I indicated a moment ago, it does not even have to have a presence in any particular part of the United Kingdom.
The appointment of all Crown Estate commissioners is by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Chancellor, reflecting the UK-wide responsibility of every commissioner. The UK Government will still need to discuss the Scottish appointments of both organisations with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the best people to represent Scottish interests are appointed.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about the status of the Crown Estate in the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s intention to consider the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee alongside the request that was made by the Scottish Government for further powers in relation to the Crown Estate. The Government believe that the Crown Estate operating on a UK-wide basis offers the best value across the whole of the United Kingdom, but we recognise the role that the Crown Estate plays in local communities and wish to work with it to ensure that it operates most effectively with them.
Particular to that is the coastal communities fund, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced the establishment of that fund, which will be financed by the Government through the allocation of funding equivalent to 50 per cent of the revenue from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. It is linked to revenue that is raised by the Crown Estate’s marine activities each year and the funding will be available on a bid basis. The Government will welcome bids from charities, businesses, social enterprises and local organisations. In that way, we can build a stronger link between the activities of the Crown Estate, particularly in coastal communities, including those that are affected by such activities. It is a very positive step, which recognises the role of the Crown Estate.
I have indicated that I will certainly give further consideration to nomenclature and thank the noble Lady for her helpful suggestion. However, I have also indicated that there is a distinction between the constitution of the Crown Estate on the one hand and that of the BBC Trust on another. The latter has a specific requirement to serve specific parts of the United Kingdom, which is why not only the nomenclature but the mode of appointment is different. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what proved to be a much more interesting debate than I expected. I made clear in my introductory remarks that these are probing amendments, which implied that I had no intention of dividing the House. Having listened to the argument, I am severely tempted to do so because it may turn out to be the high point of my career in the House of Lords but I will resist the temptation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who immediately got the point that underpinned the argument about nomenclature. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I always thought that the adjective qualified the “Crown Estate” commissioner, rather than “Crown”, which is exactly what led to the confusion that has been apparent in the debate. I have to say that I am far from totally persuaded that,
“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,
bears the narrow interpretation or function that the noble and learned Lord has attributed to it. Try as I might to apply that argument consistently to many other titles, at least one of which I have held as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, it did not seem to me to stand the test of that destructive analysis.
However, I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord has, on behalf of the Government, indicated that he is prepared to take away the issue of nomenclature and think about it. There needs to be clarity of language in the politics of Scotland. We may sometimes misinterpret and play with words for the purposes of debate but people in Scotland use these words very carefully. I have learnt in my political career that where there are strong divisions of opinion—for example, in Northern Ireland—vocabulary and phraseology matter to people and are used in particular ways. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to take this issue away.
I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord’s explanation of the reason for the different phraseology as regards the process of identification, selection and appointment. I was not aware of that difference and had not uncovered it in my researches. I am grateful to all noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for tabling an amendment, the style of which may have been influenced by one of my colleagues. That was helpful as it gave the noble and learned Lord the opportunity to put on the record information about the appointments process which will benefit that process and the openness of government. This has been a worthwhile debate. As usual with this Bill, issues which are apparently comparatively straightforward turn out to be interesting and educational. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
“(a) is qualified in land management or the law of Scotland; and(b) has experience of the functions of the Commissioners.”
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
In view of the reassurances given by my noble and learned friend, I shall not move the amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
“( ) Regulations applying in Scotland may only be made if the Secretary of State has consulted with such persons as he or she considers appropriate.”
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment briefly as it is a probing amendment. It would ensure that the Secretary of State must consult on regulations made under Section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The reason for this is that the drugs concerned are controlled drugs and licensing provision should have proper consultations. If the amendment is accepted in principle, it would mean that the regulation-making power would be subject to the principles of openness and transparency. Consultations in this case are important in view of the importance of the subject and the new breakthroughs in research that are occurring all the time. Further, circumstances can differ widely from one area to another and consultations would mean that the Government would pick up whatever special circumstances existed in different areas.
I hope the Minister in his wisdom will feel able to look favourably on this matter and that he will stress the importance of good practice and best practice. I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I hope my noble and learned friend will agree that it would always be appropriate in these circumstances to consult NICE.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I speak only because of my support for a previous amendment that was withdrawn, and I shall explain that position. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, explained, the effect of the amendment is to impose upon the Home Secretary an obligation to consult,
“with such persons as he or she considers appropriate”—
I suppose in this case it is “she”—when making regulations under Section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act but, peculiarly, only when such regulations apply to Scotland.
At first, I was attracted to the idea of a statutory requirement to consult. I was so attracted that I and my noble and learned friend sought to move a complementary amendment imposing a similar obligation on Scottish Ministers in the exercise of the new powers relating to licensing that they will enjoy when the Bill in enacted. However, after more detailed research, I have come to the conclusion that the imposition of such an obligation is not necessary in either case, which is why I have withdrawn from the Marshalled List the amendment that stood in my name and that of my noble friends.
I will not detain the House further, but the reason for that is because my research has revealed an extensive commitment to consultation by the UK and Scottish Governments and the Scottish Parliament that it would appear has been rigorously observed over a long period. As noble Lords would probably agree, whether voluntarily or by practice that does not require regulation or legislation, good practice can be developed and it is best left that way. That is my view but I shall leave the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to explain the detail.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, Clause 23 gives Scottish Ministers the power to license Scottish doctors to prescribe three controlled drugs—cocaine, diamorphine and dipipanone—for the treatment of addiction. The Calman commission recommended that responsibility for the licensing of controlled substances used in the treatment of addiction should be devolved to Scottish Ministers as part of their responsibility for health and well-being. The UK Government consider that Scottish Ministers are best placed to consider the particular circumstances in Scotland when deciding which doctors should have the authority to prescribe or administer the three controlled drugs used in the treatment of addiction. That relatively narrow devolution is set out in Clause 23.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his interest in this clause. As I have indicated, the Government certainly want to ensure that the Scottish Government have the necessary powers and abilities to tackle drug misuse effectively. That is why we have introduced Clause 23. However, it is perhaps important to indicate that while Scottish Ministers can consider the particular circumstances in Scotland when deciding which doctors based in Scotland should assume the responsibility to prescribe or administer specific drugs, they do so pursuant to regulations made under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary.
My noble friend’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate persons before such regulations were made. The power to make regulations and the responsibility for the form of those regulations is reserved to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is already required by statute to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before making regulations made under the 1971 Act. As a matter of good practice, the Secretary of State will consult key partners, and often the public, before implementing changes to regulations made under the 1971 Act. The Home Office has recently completed a three-month public consultation on proposed changes to, and the consolidation of, the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. I am afraid that I cannot tell my noble friend Lord Maclennan whether NICE was consulted but, as I can ascertain, that would seem to be one of the bodies that might have been consulted. In the context of the consultation, officials from the department met their counterparts from the Scottish Government to discuss the proposals.
The Bill is devolving the licensing function to Scottish Ministers, and they will consult whoever they think appropriate while exercising that function to license doctors in Scotland. The making of the regulations remains reserved to the United Kingdom and the Home Secretary and I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. I am sure that this point will have been noted by others, not just in the UK Government but by Ministers in the Scottish Government.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness very much for his reassurances and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Montrose
“( ) Section 89 of the Road Transport Act 1988 (tests of competence to drive) is amended as follows.
( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that tests under this section reflect the content of regulations relating to drink driving limits made by Scottish Ministers under section 9(3) or 11(2).””
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, in moving Amendment 47, I shall speak also to Amendment 50 in this group. We are dealing here with two further areas in which the Calman commission has taken up the wishes of the Scottish Executive to exercise more power: the setting of drink-driving limits and the setting of speed limits. Amendment 47 amends the Road Transport Act 1988 and would provide for regulations made by Scottish Ministers on drink-driving limits to be referred to in the regulations made by the Secretary of State with regard to the driving test—which, presumably, should still be the same across the United Kingdom. The amendment was suggested by the Scottish Law Society, among others, and is more or less a tidying-up exercise.
I notice that some of the other amendments have been tabled by noble and learned Lords opposite, and I feel slightly in awe of such learned names as appear attached to them. My amendments are directed solely at the Road Transport Act. It is interesting that none of those noble and learned Lords has objected to the devolution of powers on drink-driving, but some of the amendments in the group concern the devolution of speeding. It will be interesting to see what is brought up on that front. Of course, any variation will immediately bring complications for both learner drivers and visitors. The reason for my amendment is that any regulations made by Scottish Ministers with regard to drink-driving limits should be made known to any person submitting himself to a test of competence to drive.
Amendment 50 would provide that any regulations made by Scottish Ministers with regard to traffic regulation on special roads, general provisions as to traffic signs and temporary speed limits would appear in the driving test in a similar way to the issues I raised under my previous amendment.
Section 38(2) of the Road Traffic Act, which lays down the provisions affecting the Highway Code, gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers on his own to carry out the changes proposed in the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. I should not have thought that all those details about the Highway Code need to be in the Bill. I have received a briefing that may have emanated from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench which seems rather to agree with that; he may have a similar view, and I look forward to hearing what that is. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I think it is in order for me to speak to Amendment 48, which is in this group, at this stage.
First, I must comment on the amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. There is much talk in Scotland about so-called devo-max, which those talking about it find it almost impossible to define. This seems to me to be pretty close to devo-max. I cannot for the life of me see why we need to have different speed limits or different rules relating to drink-driving between Scotland and England. That will create particular problems for people who live on the border and are driving on roads which do not follow the geographical border. This seems to me to be absolutely devo-max and devo-plus. These proposals have come about because all the parties got together in the Calman commission to try to prevent the nationalists winning a majority in the Scottish elections and thought about everything but the kitchen sink that they could throw into the Bill—which, as usual with legislation these days, was not given great scrutiny in the House of Commons. Here we are in the Lords, looking at this stuff now. The Highway Code and the rules for driving motor cars are complicated enough without there being different rules for different parts of the United Kingdom, which is just plain silly. However, it is in the Bill and the Government appear to be committed to it, so we have to deal with it as it is.
Having said that, I am extremely grateful that the Calman commission, on which a number of my noble friends served, did not in its enthusiasm decide that it should give the Scottish Parliament the right to decide which side of the road we should drive on—I do not know whether it was suggested; perhaps my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas might be able to advise me on that. I make that point not just flippantly, because it is evident that the Bill as drafted gives the Scottish Parliament the power to decide the speed limit for motor cars but not that for HGV lorries. Had it been able to decide which side of the road to drive on, it could have been disastrous, because we would have had cars driving on one side and HGV lorries on the other, and we would have had a head-on collision.
I cannot for the life of me imagine why a Bill, which has been before Parliament now for nearly two years, has been through all its stages and been discussed by the Scottish Parliament, contains an anomaly whereby it makes provision for setting the speed limits for cars but not for HGVs. To give credit where credit is due, the parliamentary committee which looked at the Bill in the Scottish Parliament identified that anomaly. It is absurd that, at a time of great austerity and when local government has had its source of revenue through council tax frozen, we have a proposal that all road signs and speed limits should be able to be changed in Scotland but only in so far as they relate to motor cars but not HGVs.
I received a briefing for this Bill from the Whips’ Office whose contents I suppose I am not allowed to reveal because they are secret. It indicated that if I were to press the amendment my colleagues should resist it because, if we included HGVs as well as motor cars in the Bill, it would result in the road signs having to be changed. We would be in the absurd position where we would have to have road signs that related to the UK regulations for HGVs and road signs which were changed for motor cars, so we would have two sets of road signs. This is good news if you make road signs, but very bad news for the taxpayer.
My guess is that what has happened here is a typical intergovernmental dispute. I suspect that the Department for Transport is digging in its heels to maintain control over HGVs and the Scotland Office is saying, “Well, we’ve made this promise in Calman, so we’ll just leave it in the Bill and hope no one notices”. Amendment 48 establishes a principle which I am sure my noble and learned friend can happily accept because it certainly covers common sense, and I have pleasure in proposing it.
The Duke of Montrose
I do not disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but is it not true that the speed limit for HGVs is already low enough for the Scottish Executive not to wish to interfere with it? Is not their argument with private vehicles, which have a very much higher speed limit at the moment?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not have a clue, but whatever they think, Governments, as I well know, come and go, as do Ministers and Administrations. We are talking about the making of the law here and there should be consistency. It seems to me that when you are driving from London to Glasgow, the amount you are allowed to drink, what you are allowed to do in terms of the speed limit in a built-up area and what you are allowed to do on motorways and dual carriageways should be the same as they were when I learnt the Highway Code. The Highway Code should be clear to everybody and mucking about with it in this way is just plain daft. None the less, that is what we are doing. However, if you are going to give the Scottish Parliament the power to decide on a different speed limit, it seems a bit odd that it should apply not just to motorcars but to all classes of vehicles. That is a very simple point.
Lord Maxton
The noble Lord has made a very interesting point. Of course, if his second point about drink-driving is true, the penalty if you are done for drink-driving having had half a glass of wine is losing your licence. Therefore, if you have the half glass of wine in Scotland and your licence is taken off you in Scotland, does that mean that you cannot drive at all in England?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I guess it does, and that is another absurdity but this is what happens when, for political reasons, politicians start mucking around with the powers that relate to Parliaments. The end result is confusion where there should be clarity, and clarity is very important in this area. If there is a case for reducing the speed limit—I think that there is a case for doing so in built-up areas and for increasing it on motorways—it should be done in the United Kingdom as a whole. In all the time that I served as a Scottish Member of Parliament in the other place, nobody ever came to me and argued the case for having a different speed limit in Scotland. People would argue about the regulations that related to where 30 mph speed limits would be but there was no suggestion that there should be differences.
Because I am very constructive when it comes to the Scotland Bill, as my noble and learned friend knows, I am very happy to accept that a decision has been taken on this. However, if you are going to make changes to the law and to the ability to change the law in respect of speeding, drink-driving and so on, the penalties should match the crime, and we are not providing for the Scottish Parliament to be able to produce the whole package. In short, this is a bit of a muddle. I look forward to my noble and learned friend’s answer and to hearing a commitment that he will sort out the muddle in the way that this House is very good at doing.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, my name is added to Amendments 47 and 50. However, I should like to focus my thoughts in general on all the amendments in this group, which specifically, following my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, covers the devolvement of drink-driving test thresholds to Scottish Ministers and the decision on speed limits north of the border.
Within the Bill I am broadly supportive of passing decision-making to Scottish Ministers on major issues such as raising taxes. However—and this is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean —my initial reaction to the proposals for potentially different speed limits and alternative breath-test thresholds on either side of the Scottish border was that they were petty, insignificant and unnecessary. Above all, I felt that any such change north of the border must surely be change for change’s sake, with the Scots just wishing to be different and having an implicit mistrust of the English authorities to set correct limits for both.
I regard us as being one nation for these purposes. In case we had not noticed, there is a seamless border between Scotland and England, so any change would necessarily mean increased bureaucracy, together with, as has already been mentioned, changes in the Highway Code, and, in particular, signpost changes everywhere along the border from Gretna to Coldstream and beyond, leading to increased costs. Above all, it would be confusing for the motorist. It has already been pointed out that if, for example, someone driving north is stopped south of Carlisle and breathalysed, and is then let off because of the limit in England, and he then unfortunately gets caught again when he is stopped at Beattock Summit, he could be over the limit there—assuming there is a lower breath test limit north of the border. The moral of the story, of course, is that one should not drink and drive; but the fact of the matter is that we should keep it simple for motorists and it is a very confusing issue.
However, that was my initial reaction and I have come round to thinking more positively about the potential differences north and south of the border. In so doing, I decided to look at the Irish experience—that is, the differences in road laws north and south of the border. Again, it is a seamless border. There are, first of all, broadly similar speed limits, the major difference being that there are kilometres in the south and miles in the north. The implications for that are that drivers have actually got used to the changes and highway codes have been changed without too much bother. The main thing is that rental companies have had to be aware of the changes and have had to, over time, issue new guidelines. Some of their cars have dual kilometres/miles per hour on their speedometers.
When it comes to the breathalyser tests, there are differences between the Republic and Northern Ireland. At present, Northern Ireland is the same as the rest of the UK, which has a limit of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood: beyond that, you get caught. In October 2011, the Republic’s threshold was lowered to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. In Northern Ireland, there is now talk of changing to the Republic’s levels. It is no bad thing, therefore, if Scotland also goes down this route, given devolved powers.
Why is this? It is because in Scotland, the road casualty rates, some of which inevitably result from drink-driving, are 34 per cent higher per head of population—both for fatalities and for serious injuries. We should bear this in mind. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents fully supports a reduction in breath test limits. It says this is a chance for greater financial benefits for the nation as well as benefits in health and well-being.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend, but is he not making an argument for the whole of the United Kingdom? Is not the difference in statistics between Scotland and England, which he has highlighted, an argument about enforcement rather than the level of the limit?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I take my noble friend’s point, which is a good one that should be discussed. It brings up the point about discussions going on north and south of the border concerning that issue. One point to make is that a recent survey highlighted the fact that 79 per cent of Scots were in favour of lowering the limit.
Finally, as has been mentioned, if Scottish Ministers did decide to change either speed limits or breath test levels north of the border, there need to be certain safeguards in place. For example, if an English driver commits a serious offence in Scotland, it is imperative that a disqualification remains in place when he returns home. There is form on this. In 1998, for example, there was an agreement of co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and 13 member states of the European Union over disqualification. I understand that there is also an agreement between Northern Ireland and Great Britain over such recognition. I think, on balance, that devolution of powers to Scottish Ministers on road safety matters is positive only if—as seems possible—there are safer roads.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, I just want to raise one little matter about the drafting of Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Surely it would be better if the provisions to set penalties for drink-driving and for random breath-testing were put in Clause 24, which concerns drink-driving, rather than in Clause 25, which concerns speeding.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, where I disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth is in our attitude to devolution as a whole. I would sign up for what is called “devo-plus”. I define that as meaning the greatest amount of devolution consistent with common sense. When we come to debate financial issues I will say more about that, in the light of Prime Minister Cameron's recent utterances in Scotland. Given that we are likely to come back to the issue in future legislation, if we take a definition of “consistent with common sense”, I say with great respect to my colleagues who served on the Calman commission that I am not certain that different categories of air guns, different drink-driving limits or different speed limits are consistent with common sense, and we would do better to remove them altogether.
My noble friend referred to those who live on the border. When I was first elected to the Commons, my constituency boundary was the English/Scottish border. My nearest railway station is across the border. When I come to your Lordships' House by train, which I do from time to time, I have to travel across the border. Let us suppose, although it is unlikely, that the Scottish Government decided to keep the drink-driving limit higher than it is in England, and let us suppose that I repaired to that excellent institution, the Cross Keys Inn in Ettrickbridge, before setting out on my journey. I could then find myself within the law for the first part of my journey and then fall foul of the law for the second part. A much more likely scenario would be that I met my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the train going north and we had a meal and a convivial glass of wine. I could then be perfectly legal on leaving the station and suddenly illegal as I neared my home. This is not consistent with common sense. When we come to a future Scotland Bill, I hope that we might drop these issues and deal with more substantial devolution questions that are of greater interest to the Scottish people.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as I listened to the debate I wondered whether my noble friends had driven through Europe. The exact problems they explained to the House are those that one gets in Europe. Last week I drove through three countries in about an hour and a half. In each of them there was a different speed limit. This was well signposted at the side of the road and I did not cause immense problems.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is there not a proposal for harmonisation of speed limits and other matters in the European Union for precisely the reasons that the amendment ought to be supported? It goes with the European drift, which I thought my noble friend was very keen on.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, three amendments in this group—Amendment 47A, 47B and 50A—are in my name and those of my noble friends. I do not intend to speak to, or in due course move, Amendment 47B. Before I get to the meat of the amendments, perhaps I could make a general point about the Bill and the proposals from the Calman commission. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said—I hope that I do not misquote him—that this was dreamed up by a group of politicians who got together to try to prevent an SNP victory. Perhaps I was slightly naive at the time, but I did not think that that was my task as a member of the Calman commission. I am looking at two of my fellow commissioners across the Chamber and I do not think that it was in their remit, either.
In relation to road traffic, we received and assessed evidence. I have just had a quick look at it. Much of it was received from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. It is true that we commented that it was unfortunate that we did not receive evidence from major motoring organisations representing a Great Britain-wide viewpoint. We took that into account when we reached the view that we did in relation to both drink-driving and speed limits.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I cannot think of an example—perhaps my noble friend Lord Steel could help me—but there are roads in the Borders which go in and out of Scotland and England as you drive along them. If there were differences in the drink-driving limits or the speed limits, would we have signs every 100 yards saying “Now it is 30” or “Now it is 20”, or would we have policemen sitting in a lay-by in England or Scotland, depending on which had the higher limit, and would we have great arguments in the courts as to which part of the road you were on?
My noble friend Lord Caithness, who has now left, talked about driving across Europe. We are not talking about driving across Europe; we are talking about country roads in the Borders. What is the utility that is being achieved here? The arguments that the noble Lord is making, with which I have some sympathy, are arguments about what the limits and rules should be; they are not actually arguments for it being different in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
I am not familiar enough with the borders to say to what extent roads come in and out of Scotland and England. The picture the noble Lord seems to be painting is that every 100 yards it meanders over the border. Of course, I am aware that a river forms at least part of the border. I actually thought that there were more significant difficulties with Northern Ireland and the Republic. I remember reading stories about people having part of their house in the Republic and the other part in Northern Ireland. Of course, you would not drive through a house. Nevertheless, roads probably do meander more over there than they do between Scotland and England. I take the noble Lord’s point; clearly there may be times when there are issues with that. I should think that there will be a common-sense approach between police forces on both sides of the border, as there already is in relation to jurisdictional difficulties, wherever they might arise.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden
I may be able to help the noble and learned Lord. The road that I use to go to Berwick—and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does the same—goes through a small village in Scotland, in which the speed limit is 40 mph. When you go into England, it is 30 mph. I happened to get caught going at 35 mph in the village of Wark, so there are differences at the moment on these roads.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
I am obliged to the noble Lord for that information.
A number of issues are raised by these amendments as a whole. The first is one of road safety. That has already been raised in the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. It was also raised in the amendments that we have put down. There are two particular issues here. One relates to the Highway Code, the other to the driving test.
Paragraph 95 of the Highway Code says:
“You MUST NOT drive with a breath alcohol level higher than 35 microgrammes/100 millilitres of breath or a blood alcohol level of more than 80 milligrammes/100 millilitres of blood”.
It then tells you why you should not do that; alcohol will give,
“a false sense of confidence … reduce co-ordination and slow down reactions … affect judgement of speed, distance and risk”.
Paragraph 124 and the accompanying table in the Highway Code reflect the speed limits, and say:
“You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle”.
It is of course clear that if Scottish Ministers exercise their powers under the Bill, and vary the limits in either case, that will have a knock-on consequence for the Highway Code and for the driving test. It is important to ensure that people are sufficiently aware of the differences where they exist. It is important that we do not have some kind of Scottish edition of the Highway Code that reflects only the Scottish position but have instead a code that is still a United Kingdom code but that reflects differences in these limits where they exist. On the speed limit, for example, the accompanying table could be quite simply amended to show these differences where they exist.
The Calman commission obviously missed a trick when we decided not to give the power to the Scottish Parliament to change the side on which the traffic moves. Driving on the left seemed to us to remain important.
The other issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was HGVs. The Calman commission did not distinguish between different types of motor vehicles. I am unclear why that distinction is there and why it remains, and I certainly look forward to a good explanation, shall we say, from the noble Lord, of why that should be. It really does not make sense to have that kind of distinction. He may say that long-distance truck drivers are used to driving over the border, but that raises the question as to why we are devolving it at all. In fact, these very people are more likely to be aware of the differences where they exist. Therefore, if he were to advance that argument, it would not be an argument that I would accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also raised an important issue about penalties. The Calman commission simply looked at the offences and the limits on the blood alcohol and breath alcohol levels and the speed limit. I do not think that we mentioned penalties. However, there is an important point here. A reduction in the limit is more important when one talks about the alcohol limit. For example, there has been talk of a reduction to zero. If that happens, the penalty would be an automatic 12-month ban. Even someone with a minute level of alcohol would be subject to that automatic 12-month ban unless the Scottish Parliament had the power to vary not just the alcohol level but the penalty.
While this Bill devolves responsibility to the Scottish Ministers to set the blood alcohol level, that devolution might be constrained. Ministers might take the view that, while they are in favour of a reduction in the blood alcohol level, the penalties that would necessarily be imposed because they did not have the power to vary the penalty would mean that the penalty would be disproportionate.
Perhaps there is an issue about the ability to amend primary legislation, but this is a very real issue that the Minister has to take away and look at seriously. Otherwise, we would not properly devolve this matter at all and would be giving only one part of a solution to the Scottish Ministers. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that issue as well as on HGVs, and I look forward to hearing from him.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would explain to me what considerations he has in mind that justify the ability to set different blood alcohol levels north and south of the border. It seems to me that the people who live north and south of the border do not have greater sensitivities to these things. The purpose of the law is not to deal with the problem after the event but to prevent people driving with too much alcohol. The commonality of the law north and south of the border makes it clear to drivers what is acceptable. I cannot think that before they set off to cross the border, people are going to check precisely what milligram limits are acceptable on one side or the other. If there is any doubt about the limits of susceptibility, that ought to be discussed by doctors across the United Kingdom before the law is changed.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
Perhaps I could first respond to the noble Lord’s intervention. I have to say with the greatest respect that I do not accept the proposition he is putting. In the first place, the number of cross-border journeys that are taken in relation to the entire number of journeys made in the UK is minuscule. Typically, people are caught drink driving over very short distances because they are driving home either from the pub or after having gone out for a meal. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is not in his place, but let us say he goes from Ettrick over the border to catch his train, having enjoyed a good meal. Before he catches his train, he gets caught because over the border there is a different limit.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
I will in a moment. The answer is that you should know what the limit is before you set out on your journey, and that should be the case for everyone.
Lord Maxton
There is another problem, if we take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. If the noble Lord has a decent meal in the evening with a few drinks, and gets up the following morning and drives his car, he may then be stopped because increasingly, particularly in holiday periods, the police are stopping drivers early in the morning and breathalysing them. Of course, people are not aware of the dispersal rate of alcohol in their bodies.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
The Highway Code is quite explicit: you should be aware of the amount you have drunk the night before. I had people around for a meal recently. They were not driving, but when I offered them another drink, they said that they could not take it because they would be driving the following morning. That is sufficient for me. With respect, I get the impression that people are more and more aware of both the drink-driving limits nationally and the necessity of ensuring that they do not drink in the evening if they are going to be driving the next day.
Lord Lyell
The noble and learned Lord is making one point. We have heard a great deal about the limits and the penalties. My noble friend Lord Caithness was driving in Europe and went through three countries. In many countries across the Channel, the limit may be 50 milligrams or thereabouts, but often the penalty is either what I would call a light rap over the knuckles or three months. But if the level is 80 or 100 milligrams, which is what we have, quite often it will be one year or even more. Ever since, I think, 1967, the level has been 80 milligrams and 12 months. If we are going to have lower limits as there are in some Scandinavian countries—in Finland, but not Sweden or Norway so far as I am aware, it is zero; I do not know what the penalties are, whether they fluctuate or vary—would my noble and learned friend the Minister put that into the frame when he comes to respond to this?
Lord Sewel
I do not think the real issue in respect of penalties is about proportionality but to do with the type of case we have heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and my noble friend Lord Maxton, of the person living one side of the border who finds himself on the other side and commits what is an offence on that side but not on the other side. The imposition of the penalty then affects him where he is resident—he would lose his licence for the whole of the United Kingdom although he has committed no crime in England. That sort of situation will not enjoy public confidence.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
As the debate continues, it seems we are missing something. If I think back to my days in the law, we had a book called Road Traffic Offences, which dealt with the whole substance of road traffic law, which included regulations in respect of licensing and also of course the issue of penalties. Here, we are, in part, trying to add on to a United Kingdom Act—the Road Traffic Act 1988 in one case, and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in another—little bits that will apply only to Scotland and which devolve power to make certain changes in the whole structure of road traffic law in that way. As an individual who has to obey the law, I would find it very difficult to find where to go to in order to understand what my obligations are in driving. Leaving aside the issue about licensing and the like raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the United Kingdom licence is a licence to drive anywhere—yet we are asking individuals throughout the United Kingdom to have regard to regulations made by two separate bodies, each with their own responsibilities, which are giving rise to a whole series of different and very difficult questions that have already been brought to mind in this debate. I wonder whether—
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point about two different jurisdictions, can he perhaps clear up for me the difference in relation to corroboration between Scotland and England? As I understand it, at the moment, because we have UK traffic legislation, only one policeman is required to provide evidence in an arrest. However, were Scottish legislation to apply and there was a different alcohol or speed limit, would that be subject to a different form of corroboration, since it came from Scots law rather than UK law?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I would not wish to give any definitive opinion as it is a long time since I have had to deal with these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, is probably better able to do so, as he has a more modern understanding of road traffic law as a recent Lord Advocate in Scotland. However, these questions arise over a whole series of issues apart from road traffic. We are getting into an area where I wonder whether the kind of devolving of powers that is being sought here is in fact creating more problems that it would do if the whole issue of road traffic legislation—instead of being under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1988—were left as a separate Act that applies within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. That would be much clearer for members of the United Kingdom.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
The noble and learned Lord threw me that one and I will just take it up. It is true that there are a whole range of United Kingdom statutes that nevertheless require different evidential standards on both sides of the border. There is the Misuse of Drugs Act, for example, where corroboration would be required in relation to those offences that were prosecuted in Scotland but not—I think I am right in saying—in England and Wales. The same, of course, is true of the Road Traffic Act. If I may say so, that possibly just reinforces the point that different jurisdictions will have different rules of evidence and in theory, or at least in principle, there is nothing to stop them having different penalties and limits for particular offences.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has given rise to a number of important issues. I share with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, his analysis of how the Calman commission went about its work. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose suggested that we were trying to deliver what the Scottish Executive wanted us to. If only the Scottish Executive had made any connection with the Calman commission—they studiously did not give us any evidence or indication of what they wished—their engagement might have been productive.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, indicated, this was done on the basis of evidence. It was recognised by the commission that there are already different speed limits; there are already powers to set speed limits on local authority roads devolved to local highway authorities through road traffic regulation orders. They are free to use their knowledge and assessment of local roads and may set different speed limits of 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 miles per hour where they think it appropriate.
There was a view on drink-driving that it was part of criminal law, which is already devolved—but perhaps more importantly there are serious alcohol abuse issues in Scotland. I do not think that anyone is running away from them. The view was that this might be one other measure that could be part of how alcohol abuse could be tackled in Scotland.
Before we get on to some of the more specific issues on speeding and drink-driving, I shall take up the important points that have been raised by my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Younger as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, on the highway code and the driving test. The amendments to which they spoke seek to ensure that provisions of the highway code reflect the content of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers on speed limits and the drink-drive limit under the powers devolved to them in the Bill, assuming that those powers are actually used and changes made.
I fully agree that the highway code should reflect any changes made as a result of the powers being devolved, but it is important to note that there is no other legislation on the content of the code, either in the Road Traffic Act 1930 or in the supplementary provisions in Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It would be disproportionate if the only specific statutory requirement on the content of the code were the few provisions in the Scotland Bill when there is no other such requirement to include any specific items of English, Scottish or Great Britain legislation. The code provides guidance, but it is not a comprehensive description of all road traffic legislation. However, I assure my noble friends that the mechanism exists to ensure that the highway code is accurately and adequately updated. It was referred to by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose that Section 38(2) of the 1988 Act gives the Secretary of State the power from time to time to revise the code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions in the code in such manner as he or she thinks fit.
Section 38(3) places the Secretary of State under a duty to lay proposed alterations to the code, other than those that are merely consequential on the passing of an amendment or repeal of provisions, before both Houses of Parliament at least 40 days before she proposes to make the changes.
Under Section 38(4), if the House resolves that the proposed alteration should not be made, the Secretary of State must not make the proposed revision to the code. Perhaps significantly, Section 38(5) of the 1988 Act states:
“Before revising the Highway Code … the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit”.
That would include the Scottish Government as was the case during the last major revision in 2005 to 2007.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sorry, I am rather confused. Which Secretary of State are we talking about here? Is it the Secretary of State for Transport?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
So the proposition is that the duty lies on the Secretary of State for Transport to make amendments to the Highway Code, which may have been made by the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Yes, it is the Secretary of State for Transport—I hope that I said “she”—and that would be the case. There are regular revisions of the Highway Code. As I might have said or was about to say, Scottish Ministers were consulted during the last revision and it is intended that they will continue to be consulted.
It would not be helpful to have two separate editions of the Highway Code. I think I am right in saying that one contributor to the debate strongly urged that we should not have a tartan edition of it as well. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby. There should be one edition of the Highway Code, but of course it should reflect the differences that are there, and there is indeed a mechanism for doing that. The Government are therefore of the view that an amendment providing for an update to the Highway Code in the Scotland Bill is unnecessary.
Again, with regard to driving tests and the content of regulations, changes made to speed limits are somewhat parallel. Section 195 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 already requires consultation with representative organisations prior to making regulations relating to the driving test. This would include the Scottish Government. I understand the point that questions in the driving theory test about speed limits and drink-drive limits should reflect any new Scottish limits. As with the Highway Code, the driving theory test is regularly updated and significant changes to road traffic legislation can be included. Like the Highway Code, currently the content of the test is not a matter for legislation. To start adding specific requirements as to what the test must reflect, which may be subject to change in the future through primary legislation, would be inappropriate.
Nevertheless, I accept that important points have been made about driver awareness of any changes across the United Kingdom. To that end, I confirm that it is standard practice for the Scottish Government to be consulted when changes are proposed to the driving test. The theory elements of British driving assessments are already amended to reflect legal changes with substantial effects on what is covered in the assessments. I confirm that a change to the national road speed limit or the drink-drive limit, whether it were across the remainder of Great Britain after the transfer of power or in Scotland, would be such a change and would be reflected.
Lord Maxton
I have one small question. I take the point about local authorities imposing speed limits as they wish, but motorways of course come under the Highways Agency. If I am right, and if there is therefore a variation in a motorway speed limit, as there can be—there is, for instance, on the very good new M74 through Glasgow, where a 60 limit goes down to a 50 mile an hour limit—who imposes that? Who is consulted, and who is putting that speed limit on?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, motorway maintenance, for example, is certainly devolved to the Scottish Government. I rather suspect that the motorway speed limit is set under UK legislation. If I am wrong, I will either clarify it before the end of this debate or write to the noble Lord, either to confirm or to clarify. I certainly know that the maintenance of the motorway network is a responsibility of the Scottish Administration.
The amendment which noble Lords opposite also propose would require the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State to jointly make regulations governing the enforcement of the alcohol limit for driving if the limits in Scotland and England differ.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before we leave the Highway Code, let us say that this legislation has gone ahead and, for the sake of argument, that the Scottish Parliament has decided to make the speed limit 60 miles an hour rather than 70. If I am a youngster taking my driving test in Hampshire and am asked what the speed limit is on country roads and I say, “70 miles an hour”, will I pass the test or do I have to say, “It is 70 miles an hour in England and 60 miles an hour in Scotland.”? Listening to him, I do not know how my noble and learned friend will answer that question. I would like to think that the answer is that you have to give both, but how will that youngster know that and what will the mechanism be by which this will be communicated?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think the answer is that the noble Lord would fail the test, because in fact it is 60 miles an hour in England. It is 70 miles an hour only on motorways, not on country roads, so with all due respect he might actually have found that he failed the test regardless of whether the country road is in Scotland or England, but I take the more general point that he was making.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The answer is that it would be in the Highway Code and the question would stipulate whether it meant the speed for motorways in Scotland or in England. These are not insuperable problems. This reminds me of the days of the Calman commission when some of these issues were being teased out. I thought that if, prior to the union between Scotland and England, there had been no difference in the law on marriage with consent and someone had suggested that in Scotland you could marry without your parents’ consent at 16, people like the noble Lord’s ancestors would have stood up and said, “What about Gretna Green? People will be flooding to Gretna Green to get married!”. Well, so they did, and the heavens did not fall in and the union stayed together; indeed, it has been very good for tourism in that part of the south of Scotland. You can pick up these little points and tease away at them, but they are not going to end the union. The union allows for these differences if they are thought proper and appropriate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
This is all very amusing, and I take the point that I should have said dual carriageways—motorways, rather—with regard to the speed limit, but amid all that bluster my noble and learned friend gave the answer: it would be in the Highway Code. How will it get into the Highway Code if my noble and learned friend does not accept these amendments? Are we relying on the Secretary of State for Transport finding out what is going on in the Scottish Parliament and communicating that? How will this be achieved?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend is building a mountain out of a molehill. These matters are not exactly going to be slipped under the carpet. As I have indicated, Scottish Ministers were fully consulted in the most recent consultation on the revision of the Highway Code, and there is no reason to suggest that that would not happen again. Indeed, there might be even better reasons why that should happen if these powers are devolved. In the course of these debates my noble friend has put his finger on a number of important points, but I sometimes think that he is trying to make difficulties where in practice none would exist. A young person, or indeed an older person, who has not passed their driving test has to learn the Highway Code to take the theory test, and there are a whole host of questions to learn. Reserved matters change, and that is reflected subsequently in the Highway Code, but people are expected to be prepared for the test that they are about to sit.
I pick up my noble friend Lord Steel’s point on people crossing borders. My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he had driven through three countries in Europe where the speed limits changed. I recall driving through different states in the United States where speed limits changed. It was picked up that we are talking not about main roads—the M6 or the M74—but about country roads that could cross borders. I suspect that the same applies to boundaries in some other countries as well. There is certainly a boundary between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and matters are resolved there, just as when you have local speed limits.
I can think of one particular local speed limit on the west side of Shetland. I never understood why there was a 40 mile an hour limit there, in the middle of what was otherwise a 60 mile an hour limit, but you observed it, or tried to, and then when you passed the de-restriction sign you went back up to 60. It did not actually cause any practical difficulties. You can have such a variety of speed limits in local areas and around schools in built-up areas. The limit could be 20 miles an hour, and it does not seem to cause any difficulties. People see what the speed limit is—there have to be signs—and they obey it.
Lord Sewel
There is a fundamental difference between comparing the Scotland/England situation with that of Northern Ireland and the Republic. They are different states; that is the important issue. I am still concerned about someone crossing the border committing an offence on one side that is not an offence on the other side but losing their licence on a UK basis.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I give the example of the United States, which is one country where there are different speed limits in different states as you cross them. The noble Lord also mentioned licences. However, the point is that certain things are crimes in Scotland but not necessarily crimes in England. Just because you commit and are found guilty of a crime in Scotland, it is not a defence to say, “Ah, but in England I wouldn’t have committed a crime and, therefore, wouldn’t have been fined or gone to prison”. You must accept the law in the place where you are. If you go out to drink and drive, you should have regard to what the limits are. For the sake of argument, if the limit in Scotland was lower and you knew that you would be driving in Scotland, you should have proper regard to what the law is there.
As someone who was brought up some eight miles from the English border, when I was 18 we certainly knew the difference between the licensing hours in Gretna on the Scottish side and Longtown on the English side. In fact, there was a pub much closer, just across the border on the other side of the A74 from Gretna Green. Local people know what the different laws are on both sides of the border. As I say, if you are drinking and driving you should have proper regard to what the law is in the country in which you are driving.
Lord Sewel
Is the Minister’s position that if, as in the case that I cited, a person drives across the border and commits a crime in Scotland that is not a crime in England, it is perfectly understandable that, if the situation allowed, he should lose his licence in Scotland but not in England, where he has done nothing wrong?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, at the moment you could be in a position in which you gain penalty points, which could cumulatively lead to you losing your licence, because you have breached a 20 miles per hour speed limit set by a local authority. Just because a local authority in Hampshire would not necessarily have designated a 20 miles per hour limit for a similar area, that in no way means that the penalty points that you have accumulated for speeding—perhaps outside a school in Lanarkshire—should somehow be discounted. The point is that if the decision made by the Scottish Parliament was that the law should reflect the problem of alcohol abuse in Scotland, it follows that people are aware of the penalties.
The Marquess of Lothian
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. He quite rightly said that there are signs to tell you whether the speed limit is 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. I live in the borders as well and sometimes, to get from one part of the Scottish borders to another, I go through England. Is he suggesting that there should be signs to tell us what the drink driving limit is on both sides of the border?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am suggesting that the noble Marquess, being a responsible citizen and knowing the circumstances, will know that the law is different in Scotland and England. After all, let us recall that the Scottish Parliament introduced a ban on smoking in public places well ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom, yet there appeared to be no problem with visitors to Scotland not knowing that the ban existed in Scotland, albeit that at the same time it did not exist in England. These matters will not be dealt with clandestinely. You can bet your life that if the change is made it will be well broadcast. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Younger indicated, a change was made in the Republic of Ireland that was well known. I am sure it was well known throughout the island of Ireland. Living in Scotland and working in London, I was certainly conscious that that particular change had been made.
On the question of penalties, there is of course no maximum limit to a disqualification. These matters are best taken into account by the court. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about the minimum disqualification period, especially if it were to apply in the event of there ever being zero tolerance of alcohol. He makes a point that I certainly wish to reflect on because it is a different point. If there is a maximum limit, no special arrangements need to be made as it is properly a matter for the court to take into account when determining the circumstances of any given offence.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in the debate. As noble Lords are aware, we have explored many avenues, although possibly not all, that could be exhausted on this topic. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, mentioned the main themes that have run through the debate such as road safety and which side of the road we drive on. However, it seems to me that if the alcohol driving limit is reduced to zero, using certain brands of cough mixture might get one into trouble.
I was grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for addressing my proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988. I purposely avoided tabling amendments to do with the Highway Code. It seems to me much more important at least to get the matter clear for people sitting the driving test. I shall read my noble and learned friend’s response, which was very detailed as this matter requires a detailed response. We have all been trying to avoid muddle. That theme seems to run through this group of amendments. My amendments do not seek to gainsay the recommendations of the Calman commission, but it seems to me that if any of these amendments are accepted, the two amendments standing in my name would need to be accepted also to avoid muddle.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, who did a formidable job of making bricks without straw. I am very disappointed that he did not tell us the Department for Transport’s arguments for having different speed limits for cars and lorries. Despite all the towns and byways that he mentioned on which separate speed limits apply, I am not aware of any town or community in Scotland that can set a speed limit for lorries as well as cars, which is what is proposed in the Bill.
I am most grateful for the assurance that my noble and learned friend will look at this. I take it from what he said that he is also looking at my Amendment 49 on penalties. I shall certainly be happy not to press my amendments and I entirely agree with my noble friend the Duke of Montrose that his amendments are also worthy of further consideration.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“( ) Before commencing discussions with representatives of foreign governments or inter-governmental organisations, Scottish Ministers are required to obtain consent to the discussions from a Minister of the Crown.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, we suddenly seemed to be making rapid progress there, so we should now take a little time to contemplate an interesting issue before we get on to the important matters of finance that I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, is here to deal with. Perhaps I may give him advance notice that under one particular item, I might feel it necessary to raise the issue of whether or not the problems that Rangers Football Club currently faces would have been affected in any way if these changes to the law in Scotland had been implemented by now. That is a matter for later in our discussions, but I thought it might be helpful if I intimated that to him now.
Some of my more fainthearted friends, whom I will not name, advised me to withdraw the amendment; they thought it went a little too far. I must confess that it is not the most felicitous of amendments that I have drafted during the course of this Committee stage. My friends and colleagues, anxious for my well-being, warned me against a possible cybernat offensive if I moved the amendment. Perhaps I may tell them that that offensive has already taken place just by the very fact of tabling the amendment. I must say that if the provisions for ageism had already been brought in by the Government opposite—and they have not yet been implemented—some of the remarks could have been actionable. That is not to mention some of the other things that were said.
Perhaps I may therefore take this opportunity to remind people outwith Parliament of the purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill, which, as I understand it, is for the tabling of amendments—not necessarily to move them and vote on them—to provide debates around particular issues. We have had probing amendments, amendments put forward for debate and withdrawn, and amendments that have not been moved. That is the right thing that should happen.
I want to make three preliminary points on this amendment. I have tabled other amendments, which I intend to withdraw, putting “Devolved” in front of “Government” in every part of the Bill—the “Devolved Government”. The reason I tabled those amendments was to have an opportunity to debate the difference between devolution and independence—there is a complete difference. Some people try to conflate them—the nationalists, Salmond in particular, try to conflate it for their political purposes—but there is a major, substantive difference, a complete difference. It does not matter how much devolution we have, we still remain part of the United Kingdom. Sovereignty is still with the United Kingdom. Once Scotland makes the crucial decision to become independent, it is irrevocable. We would no longer be part of the United Kingdom. That is a major change, and we need to keep reminding people beyond this Chamber of that.
That is my first preliminary point. The second is that we need to get our courage. I am very glad to have seen the recent launch, reported in the Scotsman today, of the rainbow coalition between the different parties in Scotland. It is about time that the unionists, the federalists and the devolutionists got together. Incidentally, I should like to hear more from the federalists—traditionally, the Liberal Democrats—about the federal solution, which, as I have said before, is, in my view, the long-term stable solution for the constitution of the United Kingdom.
I am slightly fed up with the accusation from some of the nationalists that it is somehow wrong if we join forces with the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in a joint campaign—the phrase “the toxic Tories” has been used deliberately. There is a smear campaign to try to divide us; that is the purpose. I disagree with the Tories on 99 per cent of what they do, but even a Tory is not wrong always. They can be right from time to time, and when they are right, we should embrace them, work with them and encompass them in our activity.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, is not new Labour a monument to that principle?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I did not hear that; my noble friend Lord Maxton was talking.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I said: is not new Labour a monument to that principle?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It is a monument? That is a good question for a start. That has implications in itself. As my former Secretary of State will recall, I was always asked if I was new Labour or old Labour and I used to say, “slightly shop-soiled Labour”.
Salmond and the nationalists relied on Annabel Goldie and her Tory group for support for their budget every year for the four years when I was in the Scottish Parliament. They did not see it as wrong to have that kind of coalition. Let us work together where we agree with each other and let us not to be ashamed of it.
Lord Lyell
Before the noble Lord moves on, would he suggest that the First Minister might take over the Scottish rugby team as coach?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Well, he tried to get on television to talk about rugby, purporting to be an expert on it, and blamed the BBC for withdrawing his invitation. In fact, the BBC did not invite him; he invited himself and then the BBC said, “We don’t have a place for you, we’re afraid, because we’ve got people who actually know about rugby to talk about it”. It would be better to have someone who knows about rugby to manage the Scotland rugby team, but I have no doubt that the First Minister would think that he could do it.
I return to the amendment. When I was a Minister in the Department for International Development, I travelled the world, inevitably. It was part of my responsibility to go to the poorer countries of the world to see the problems and what we could do about them.
Lord Martin of Springburn
Just for the sake of facts, I should point out that my noble friend travelled the world before he became a Minister. [Laughter.]
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, was a friend of mine—I shall see him afterwards. But he is absolutely right. That was because I was an opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, defence and international development for 13 years.
It is important for the purpose of the argument and for this amendment to deal with when I was a Minister representing Her Majesty's Government. Even then, my private secretary had to submit proposals for travel. It was co-ordinated by the Foreign Office and there was some logic in that. But for three Ministers from different departments suddenly to turn up in the same capital at the same time, with each not knowing that the other would be there, could cause chaos and make us look inefficient and stupid. There needs to be some co-ordination; it is a practical matter.
Of course, the First Minister thinks that he is too grand. He thinks that he can do whatever he likes because he wants to pretend that Scotland is effectively independent at the moment and, therefore, there is no accountability to the United Kingdom Government for anything. At the very least, he should consult the Foreign Office before he and other Ministers go overseas to make sure that there is not a clash.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I am grateful to my “noble friend” for giving way. Does he think that if his amendment had been in place it might have beneficially affected the understanding of the al-Megrahi case?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is a very interesting point. I had not thought about it. It needs some time to be thought about. Perhaps, by the time we get to the end of this debate, my former honourable friend could answer his own question, because he is a barrister and has more understanding and knowledge of these matters than me.
At the very least, I accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Browne—I shall name him now—that perhaps my amendment has gone a little too far by proposing that Scottish Ministers should get the approval of the UK Government, but at least they should consult them. At least, the Foreign Office should know when Scottish Ministers go overseas and give them help. After all, I found that the Foreign Office could give even Ministers in the Department for International Development advice, guidance and help in relation to our travel overseas.
I worry about the pretence of independence. It was the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who said that Scotland is in danger of sleepwalking into separation and he is absolutely right. We in this House get attacked as old fogeys—all this ageism—and as being non-elected. It does not matter that, for 40 years, I was an elected member either as a councillor, an MP or an MSP—they have forgotten all about that—but now, in here, we have no right, according to some of the cybernats, to talk about it. Perhaps we do not have a right in that sense, but we have a responsibility to warn people about sleepwalking into separation. The pretence that there is no difference between devolution and independence, that we are effectively already there and just have to take that little further step, is not helpful.
I urge us all in this argument—I have used just one example—to be bold. We should not be defensive about this union. This has been the most successful political and economic union anywhere in the world and we should be proud of it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says,
“obtain consent to the discussions from a Minister of the Crown”.
Should he not be specific about which Minister? Would it not be better to say the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, is absolutely right. The amendment was written rather hastily. It could benefit from that redrafting and it could benefit from the redrafting that my noble friend Lord Browne suggested to me privately—it is not private anymore, I know. If we were to discuss it further on Report and I was to table it again, it would certainly incorporate changes of that kind.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, perhaps I may marginally disagree with my noble friend’s answer to the noble Lady. There may very well be different Ministers for different occasions. If, for instance, we were dealing with fishing and the Scottish Minister wanted to travel as part of a delegation or whatever, it might be different. It would not necessarily be the Foreign Office he would be dealing with; it might be the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Therefore, my noble friend may very well be right in proposing the words “Minister of the Crown”, because it could depend on which function was being undertaken.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene on this amendment but I could not quite resist it. On a couple of occasions this afternoon I have felt great sympathy for my namesake, Alice Liddell, who wandered through the looking glass, particularly when we were discussing the variation in speed limits on border roads. However, I began to feel that too when listening to some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Foulkes—not least his point about Rangers Football Club. I think I shall try to make a point of being elsewhere when we come to that bit of the debate.
However, there is a serious point behind what my noble friend has alluded to in his amendment, although I am glad that he has drawn attention to the fact that its wording might not be as effective as it might be. Despite the enormous elephant in the room of the debate in Scotland about the future of secession or separation, we have to remember that this legislation is about the operation of Scotland within a devolved arrangement—in other words, within the United Kingdom. There is an important point about the consistency of foreign policy and how that foreign policy is articulated in other parts of the world.
I have been at the receiving end of Scottish Ministers popping up in other parts of the world and, frankly, it is a matter of walking on eggs. There are some very serious issues confronting us at the moment, not least in relation to Syria. We have just seen the difficulties in Libya and we also have to bear in mind that it was Mr Salmond who called the intervention in Kosovo an act of “unpardonable folly”. That kind of mixed message on British foreign policy does not help anyone, particularly those who are in international delegations seeking to convince the world to go in a particular direction. It would be a sign of the maturity of the devolved settlement if the Scottish Government were prepared to enter into a mature debate with the Foreign Office over areas where there are issues of interest in relation to foreign affairs. The Scottish Government, particularly under my noble friend Lord McConnell, have done a considerable amount in Malawi. That is an excellent example of intervention, particularly given Scotland’s history in relation to Malawi and the very strong ties between Scotland—particularly the University of Glasgow—and Malawi. These initiatives are of great value, but freelance activity is not helpful to the dissemination of British foreign policy.
I am hoping from the tenor of what my noble friend has said that it is his intention to withdraw the amendment. However, I do not think that the sentiment should be completely lost that there is a sound reason for a degree of co-ordination and, indeed, for a co-ordinated foreign policy. Every one of us in this place and in the House of Commons who travels abroad representing Parliament has a self-denying ordinance not to criticise our Government or our country. It would be quite helpful if some of the devolved Administrations within this country also acknowledged that convention.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I was only kidding, so I hope he does not go after me following this debate. I remember when we, including the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, entered the other place when we were freshly elected. When the rest of us were having difficulty finding our way around this big Palace of Westminster with all its nooks and crannies, the noble Lord managed to get to the Falkland Islands at just about the same time as the commandos. Therefore, travel has been part of his parliamentary life.
I think that we have to be careful. I do not canvass any more because I am a Cross-Bencher but I am already hearing from reliable sources that people on the doorstep are getting concerned about what Alex Salmond is saying he wants for Scotland. For example, Faslane is in my previous constituency, in which I was mainly brought up. There are a lot of employees at Faslane from Springburn, the Robroyston area and Bishopbriggs, where I live at the moment, and they are expressing concern about the possible closure of that facility. Therefore, men and women are talking about the First Minister’s grand ideas. However, the worst thing we can do is to attack the First Minister or anyone else on a personal basis. I agree with Johann Lamont, who said, “I will share a platform with anyone who is willing to fight for the United Kingdom and support the Scottish Parliament”. That is the road that we should be going down.
I am glad that this amendment is going to be withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We would be kidding ourselves if we expected the First Minister and the senior members of the Executive in a Scottish Parliament, who have certain rights that the United Kingdom Parliament gave them, to go almost cap in hand to a Minister of the Crown to get permission—I think the term is “consent” but the meaning is the same—to go abroad and speak to officials. We have to be realistic. We have all-party groups. There has been concern in both Houses that four or five people can gather under one roof and say that they are an all-party group. We have all-party groups covering subjects such as horse-racing, dog-racing and many other things, but many of them are linked with a country. That reminds me that I had better declare an interest as a member of the British-Italian group—something of which I am proud. It would be strange if the First Minister of Scotland had to get consent from a Minister of the Crown, yet the All-Party British-Italian Parliamentary Group could send a delegation to Italy or go to see the ambassador, who is the official representative of Italy’s Government in London.
It should also be remembered that there have been devolved Parliaments in Canada for many years. In fact, the constitution of Canada was held by both Houses only recently. However, no one would deny the right of the representatives of the Canadian provincial Governments—if that is the right description—or indeed the Speakers from those Governments to visit their opposite numbers here without going to Ottawa and saying to the Prime Minister or the appropriate Minister of the Crown, “We want to go to the United Kingdom”. They would not dream of doing that. The same would apply to Australia.
Therefore, although many of us disagree with what the First Minister is saying, there is a danger of us saying to Scottish Ministers that we are putting shackles on them before they can go anywhere abroad, yet any of our number in this House or the other House, or jointly, can go without asking anyone’s permission. There was a joke about a Member of Parliament who had a habit of travelling, and when the students were getting arrested in Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks, so did that Member of Parliament. His constituents did not say, “What was he doing in Tiananmen Square? He should have been here in Liverpool or in Westminster”. I make that point not to attack that Member of Parliament, who is dead—God rest his soul.
I make the point that if one person in this House or another place can take it upon himself to go to a country abroad and no one would say a word about them doing so, why are we going to put that pressure on the properly elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament? I hear parliamentarians saying that the Executive is too powerful. It rolls off the tongue. I know the amendment is going to be dropped, but if we bear in mind that this amendment belongs to the House, why is the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, saying he is going to drop it? It is the property of this House. If we pass this amendment, we would be giving an awesome power to Ministers of the Crown, who we often say have too much power as it is.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment because it has enabled there to be a discussion about the potential role of devolved government in the protection of interests in overseas discussions. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, said. I cannot believe that it is helpful, in seeking agreement across borders on issues that might affect us, for British representatives to be unable to speak with one voice at the official negotiating level.
The proper time for those discussions is prior to the engagement in the international debate. It is not meant to put a ban on representation by individuals who have some democratic authority. The amendment may well be defective in that respect, as the noble Lord has recognised. However, let us consider the situation in reverse. If we, as a British Government, were under the impression that we had to deal not just with the Spanish Government on fisheries policy but with a Catalan Government as well, it would hugely complicate our negotiations. I am bound to say that so long as the nation state remains, we should be dealing internationally and not with devolved Governments.
The representation of points of view is quite a different matter. It would have been helpful—to answer the question that was thrown back at me—if there had been a full dialogue between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government about the al-Megrahi case. I am not sure that there was not, in fact, such a dialogue; it as remained rather obscure, but it is certainly important to Britain’s position vis-à-vis some of our allies that we were not thought to be in complete ignorance of the Scottish Government’s position. It led to some deterioration of understanding between the United States and the United Kingdom that there was no absolute clarity about who was essentially to take responsibility for the release and return of al-Megrahi to his homeland.
Lord Morgan
I will make one or two remarks as a non-Scottish person, although the purpose of this amendment in part appears to be to give the Scottish National Party a good kicking. That is a very desirable objective in many ways. Coming from Wales, I am very glad that we do not have a party with the bitter Anglophobia that is frequently revealed by the Scottish National Party. In Wales, we concentrate on other things, such as beating other countries at rugby and speaking our own language.
In wishing to criticise the Scottish National Party, I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has just said. We must be careful not to give the impression of imposing a uniform pattern on the ongoing process of devolution. It is about difference; it is about differentiation; it is about pluralism—and it is very difficult to impose any kind of check on that. I recall that Mr Gladstone famously said, “You cannot put a stop to the onward march of a nation”. That can apply to nations within the British Isles as well.
The question was raised by various noble Lords about what kind of foreign representations we were proposing to monitor or have Foreign Office checks on. There are already, of course, as other noble Lords have said, enormous ranges of foreign contacts, particularly with the European Union. It would be very difficult to distinguish between foreign contacts that needed control from Big Brother at Westminster and other kinds of contact where that was not appropriate. The real point is that there is a kind of mistaken assumption that a devolved Scottish Government—whether it be devo-max or even going beyond that, if that actually took effect—would somehow impinge on the sovereignty of the British Parliament.
The word “sovereignty” was used by my noble friend. Views of sovereignty have moved on a great deal since it was brandished by Dicey at the end of the 19th century as a kind of inalienable set of powers that, if they were diminished, would inevitably disappear. There are all sorts of ways in which the sovereignty of this Parliament is fundamentally affected and transformed. At the present time, human rights legislation has done that, our contact with Europe has done that, and devolution has certainly done that. In the famous phrase, this is a process and not an ongoing policy that comes to an end.
If you look at the concept of sovereignty within the context of some other countries, you have a very different view of sovereignty. It emerges as a much more flexible concept; it is not like a cake that you take a piece out of and that piece never reappears. Look at the länder of Germany, which pursue an enormous range of contacts on industrial, economic, agricultural and social matters with other countries, enormously to their success. It has been a feature of the success of Germany, particularly the länder such as Baden-Württemberg, that their economic prospects have flourished because they have been allowed to be independent in this way and not controlled by a central Government. This is the purpose of devolution, and I think this is more likely to be about the success of devolution than about differentiation. In wishing to criticise the severity and extremism of the Scottish National Party, we must be careful that the extended implications of devolution are not criticised as well, because they are enormously valuable for the well-being of our country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, had to say on these matters and I will not repeat the arguments. I would just like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Maclennan. One of the big low points in my political life was seeing the saltires flying in Libya when al-Megrahi landed there. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has been kind enough to say that perhaps his amendment is not the most felicitously drafted. Its substance, however, is that Ministers in the Scottish Parliament can of course make representations and meet delegations and travel abroad, but they should not pursue an independent foreign policy.
Until now, we have enjoyed a Civil Service that has kept Ministers in check and within the bounds of their responsibilities. I say with regret that there is a certain amount of evidence that that is not happening in Scotland at the moment. The Scottish National Party is perfectly entitled to have a policy that states that Scotland should withdraw from NATO. Why it has that policy, I do not know; everyone else is queuing up to join NATO. However, it is not entitled to advance and advocate the policy within the confines of the devolved Parliament, because foreign and defence policies are not the business of that Parliament.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I will privately reveal that I have not been briefed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on why the amendment goes too far; I worked it out for myself. The idea of seeking consent seems to be a little insulting. Co-ordination is what we are talking about. The idea of writing into law a requirement for co-ordination seems very odd. I admit that the Foreign Office that I worked in completely failed to co-ordinate the travel plans of Ministers of both political persuasions. It is very difficult for the Foreign Office to attempt the task, and it is universally ignored by the rest of Whitehall. The person who can achieve the task is the ambassador who is lucky enough to have a couple of ministerial visitors. If he tells A or A’s office that B will be in the House at a certain time, A will decide that his plans require him to come at another time. In my experience, the collegiate atmosphere of any British Government has meant that it is perfectly easy to separate visits one from another. Therefore, this is unnecessary.
The innuendo was made that the Scottish nationalists are going around arguing with other NATO Governments against NATO. I have not seen any evidence of that. I would be surprised if it were true.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps the noble Lord would care to read the Scottish nationalists’ manifesto.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Yes, but the innuendo today was that they must not be allowed to talk to foreign Governments because they would try to persuade them in some way to leave NATO. That is a big jump. Of course it is in the Scottish National Party manifesto; we have all read it. However, again in this debate, I have been worried by the splendid attack of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He said that he is up for the fight. It is easy to have this kind of fight when the opponent is not in the ring. We ought to be careful about insulting somebody who is not here. I am happy to be insulted because I am here. However, the fight should be conducted out there on the hustings. Here, we should try to avoid insult and innuendo.
Lord Maxton
To be fair—and not even to be fair—the fact is that the Scottish nationalists are not here through their choice, not through the choice of the House. If they wanted to be here, putting their case, they could be—instead of relying on the one Welsh nationalist in the House.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
It may well be true that it is their choice. If so, it is a great mistake. I hope it is the view of all in this House that it would be very good if they were here. While they are not here, we should try to avoid insult. It does not do us any good when our debates are reported in Scotland.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I did not say anything that was insulting, and I do not do innuendo. I am quite direct. I said that the First Minister should not use his position to make the case against Britain being in NATO. There is nothing insulting about that. Nor is it an innuendo. Equally, the First Minister, who is paid from my taxes, should not go around the world arguing against our nuclear deterrent. He should concentrate on his duties as First Minister. There is nothing insulting about that, and there is no innuendo.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am sorry but I am not aware that the First Minister is going around the world arguing that people should leave NATO or that Britain should leave NATO. I am sure that he is saying that, if elected, he would choose to leave NATO. The innuendo is the implication that he is undercutting the policy of the British Government policy by saying that Britain should leave NATO. I do not think that he is doing that. I do not know what he is doing; he does not have somebody here to tell us, which is a pity.
I intervened on the amendment to ask the Minister whether there has been any proposal from the Scottish National Party for the inclusion in the Scotland Bill at this point—because Clause 27 is where it would fit—of a provision that would clarify or increase the role that it should play in EU negotiations, in the delegation that comes from these islands or in the preparation of the positions that the delegation will advance. I ask that because I do not know the answer. Last summer, as I recall, the Scottish Government indicated that they wanted something of the sort. I do not know what they want. I would like to see the proposal, if it is around. Are the Government sitting on a suggestion from Edinburgh that has not found its place in the Bill because they did not agree with it? If the Scots came forward with something at this stage, would the Government insert a clause in the Bill?
It is worth addressing the question of whether, as you give a bit more devolution, you should give a larger role in the preparation of a position for certain councils. I do not know whether that would extend to the presence of a representative such as a Minister from the Scottish Government in the ministerial team. I remember days when that was the case. When we first joined the EU in the 1970s, we were always represented in the Fisheries Council by a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and by a Minister from the Scottish Office, operating in tandem. I will not comment on whether that was a good arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will have a better memory of it than I.
The German Länder are represented in the back row of many councils that deal with domestic affairs; they do not have a speaking part. I would not recommend that anybody look at Belgium, but if we do, we see that in many councils the Walloon and Flemish Ministers attend alternate meetings. That is ideal for those negotiating from a different point of view from that of the Belgian Government, because it means that the Minister never knows what happened in the previous council and it is possible to score some runs at his expense.
When devolution happened, a concordat was prepared in London and negotiated with Edinburgh that laid down detailed rules on what kind of issues the Scots should be consulted on in full. I do not know how well that has worked; I have been away. If it is not working well, it could be looked at again; there is no issue of principle there. As we devolve a little more, maybe we ought to devolve a slightly bigger role in the preparation of such things.
These are my questions for the Minister. Has anybody asked? Has anybody specified what is wanted? What would the Government’s attitude be?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I was a Minister who attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in the 1970s, although I did not belong to the Ministry of Agriculture; I was representing the consumer interest. I recall a number of Ministers coming to these councils but they all belonged to the same Government. Prior to our participation in these debates, we had clarified what our objectives were in common and we did not seek to confuse the other members of the council by putting forward entirely different points of view. That is the risk of having people who are seeking to separate one part of the United Kingdom from another.
The noble Lord has inquired of my noble and learned friend as to the Government’s position. It would be very interesting to know what he considers should be the position.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I draw a distinction between the situation with a degree of devolved authority—maybe a little more if this Scotland Bill becomes law—and the position of an independent Scotland. That is a totally different question. I would think it extremely unlikely that a delegation consisting of representatives of the London Government and the Edinburgh Government negotiating in Brussels in a situation of devolution but not independence for Scotland could not work out in advance and in private what was the best line and who would make which point. I do not think it very likely that the representatives from Edinburgh would see it as their task to undercut the United Kingdom interest because that would—while devolution persists—also undercut the Scottish interest.
Lord Sewel
One of the difficulties in relation to Europe and getting a common view—almost parity between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers—would be around fisheries policy. The position of the SNP Administration in Scotland is that—and God knows how it can be done; I do not think it can—Scotland would leave the common fisheries policy. That creates a totally different negotiating framework in that policy area from a Government who say, “We are staying in but we have to reform and modify the common fisheries policy”.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, as I attended 108 meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council I must just very briefly intervene. Of course, it was very common in the council that a Minister from the Scottish Office—a Scottish member of the UK Government—led for the United Kingdom. This was quite right, because of the huge fishing interest of Scotland. That was perfectly reasonable. I do not remember any case where there was anything complicated about that.
I should add that some other member states did something quite different. For example, a representative of the regional government in Belgium spoke for Belgium on a number of occasions, and I think on one or two occasions a representative from a German Länd spoke for the German delegation in the council. That was not the British position but the position of two other member states.
Lord Stephen
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that indeed that has happened: a Member of the Scottish Parliament has represented and has led for the United Kingdom at a European committee. Therefore, the pattern that the noble Lord has described is unusual but it has happened.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I apologise profusely to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for missing the opening of the debate. I was quite distraught, actually. There was a ministerial meeting on another matter. I had looked forward to being here for this debate.
I only rise because my name was mentioned and my presence here without opening my mouth would be looked at askance. I do not want to go into the fighting with regard to the profile taken by the SNP Government; I want to follow the question of when it is legitimate for a devolved Government to try to have their own voice. Clearly there are opportunities to deal with other countries—for example, in education, in getting students from other countries to come to your universities—where the circumstances may be different in Scotland or Wales, and those opportunities can be taken. Likewise, with regard to industrial development, Wales did very well indeed in combining with the motor regions, including Baden-Württemberg, and there is industrial benefit to be had from the bilateral relationships.
Sometimes it can get a little bit more complicated. The former First Minister of Wales, Rhodri Morgan, led a delegation to Patagonia, where there is of course a Welsh community. The interests of the Welsh community in Patagonia, if one considers them in the context of some recent developments, may not be exactly the same as the interests perceived in this Chamber. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. I do not think that anyone would say for a moment that the First Minister of Wales should not have those links with Patagonia; it is a question of how the thing is then undertaken.
We have also seen it working the other way round. Because of the existence of the National Assembly—and I suspect this is true in Scotland with the Scottish Parliament—there are opportunities for people coming from overseas to link up with people with whom they can do business on a bilateral basis. That is not a problem at all in terms of the UK.
The last two or three contributions have touched on the European Union, and that of course is where problems can arise. In Wales we have had the opportunity to lead the UK delegation from the National Assembly in matters such as the sheep-meat regime, which was led by Elin Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs; Wales has also led in minority-language meetings. There are opportunities like that. However, the problem arises—and we do not do ourselves any favours if we hide away from it—that there will be some circumstances where the interests of Scotland or Wales may not be identical to the interests, as perceived from London, of the UK as a whole. Fisheries may be one; I am not close enough to that to know. Colleagues from Scotland are much closer to that.
It may be that even on party-political balances—we in Wales have a Labour Government now; there is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government here—the perception will be different and the profile that people want to project to the outside world may be different because of that. The question is: how can the line be drawn within a devolved settlement that is reasonable in all circumstances? That is what we need to address, to get the balance right there, rather than perhaps fearing that the thing can go to an extreme that causes difficulties for all concerned.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
I can quite understand the noble and learned Lord’s wish to progress matters.
I am not entirely clear where to start. The amendment before this House is that:
“Before commencing discussions with representatives of foreign governments or inter-governmental organisations, Scottish Ministers are required to obtain consent to the discussions from a Minister of the Crown”.
It seems that we have ranged a little beyond that.
Perhaps I should start by declaring that I have had discussions with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. He is at liberty to tell the House what these were. I did not actually warn him about cybernats. I should perhaps advise him that he should not read what they say because they will just make him upset—and at his age he really ought to be careful.
I will try to pick up some of the points that have been made, and make one or two of my own. First, it seems desirable to ensure that there is good co-operation between the UK Government and Scottish Ministers when they are engaged overseas. That has not always happened, and even when the Scottish Ministers were of the same political persuasion as the UK Government it did not always happen. I am not saying that there were any undue difficulties, but sometimes the co-operation broke down. I must however say that, personally, I was always grateful for advice from the Foreign Office. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, when he was Attorney-General, and I represented the United Kingdom at a conference in China between the European Union and the ASEAN countries on the issue of serious crime. I was due to chair a session of the conference which included the Attorney-General of Burma. I was unclear as to what role I should take in relation to the introduction of the Attorney-General of Burma, and I remember being very grateful for the advice that I got from the Foreign Office on that.
Secondly, it is right that both Governments respect the jurisdiction of the other, and that we recognise the frustration where it is felt that Scottish Ministers go beyond their responsibilities, particularly where it appears that they are pursuing a broader political strategy. However, Scottish Ministers have legitimate areas of activity which involve interaction with foreign Governments and intergovernmental organisations. They have responsibility for implementing directives of the European Union in the devolved area. They need to address vital European Union interests, not just in terms of directives but in terms of policy, and in doing so they interact not just with foreign Governments but with other devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, referred to the experience of the German Länder, and the way in which they go about their business.
Ministers also have responsibility for promoting trade, tourism and investment, and that of course necessarily brings them into contact with foreign Ministers and Governments. They also take an active part in intergovernmental organisations and conferences. I recently participated in a conference at the London School of Economics on what was called sub-state diplomacy. I found that quite instructive in finding out the way in which devolved Administrations work, not just in Europe but in other places; learning how Quebec, under both nationalist and liberal Governments, had promoted Quebec, and looking at the experience of Catalonia and the Belgian states in Europe.
It seems unrealistic, if I may say so, to suggest that each time Scottish Ministers were to speak to Ministers of other Administrations they should first get the consent of the Government. First of all, if you are at a conference and you are approached by a Minister of another Government it is not always possible to get that consent. Do you say “I’m very sorry, I can’t speak to you because I need to get consent from the relevant Minister”? As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, sometimes not even the Foreign Office is able to co-ordinate.
With respect I also ask: what exactly are we attempting to do in this amendment? What sanction do we impose on Scottish Ministers if they do not get consent? We risk giving the Scottish Ministers a tool with which they can claim, yet again, that they do not have the respect of the UK Government, and that they are being gagged while they go about what they consider their legitimate business. That is not just a question of consent. If my noble friend is thinking of coming back with an amendment that they should advise or consult before they do that, the same question arises. What sanction does my noble friend suggest should be visited on a Scottish Minister who does not consult, get consent or obtain whatever other permission is required by this amendment?
We should think long and hard. I endorse a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, said, because he made much the same point in his interesting comment, which of course comes from his long experience, mainly in the other place but also here. We should listen very carefully to these voices before we go down this road.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it has been useful to have this discussion on foreign relations and the devolved Administration and devolved Parliament in Scotland. I share a lot of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, that in fact what this amendment proposes is largely unrealistic. He questions the sanction; we can readily anticipate how it would be spun if indeed it was accepted. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, accepted himself that the amendment was flawed. That said, the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, indicated that certain sentiments were associated with this that we should not lose sight of and quite properly referred to the initiative pursued by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, when he was First Minister, in promoting Scotland’s links with Malawi. That was done in full consultation and co-operation with the United Kingdom Government and has been widely applauded and respected. It shows that it is possible to have that kind of relationship. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, indicated, there are legitimate areas of responsibility that fall on the devolved Government in Scotland involving interaction with foreign Governments.
It is important, therefore, that the Committee should be aware that there is a memorandum of understanding or concordat on international relations, which deals with devolved Administration engagement with other Governments and which is therefore relevant to the Scottish Government’s interaction with foreign Governments. Two areas are identified that are of relevance here. Bilaterally, the Scottish Government may, in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, make arrangements or agreements with foreign Governments or international organisations on devolved matters,
“provided that such arrangements or agreements do not purport to bind the UK in international law, affect the conduct of international relations or prejudice UK interests”.
Indeed, I can think of educational agreements that have been reached. It also says:
“The Scottish Government is, however, obliged to consult the FCO in advance about any contact, correspondence, or proposal that is novel or contentious, might create a contingent international liability or may have implications for international relations”.
On international organisations it is sometimes appropriate—and this is recognised in the concordat or memorandum of understanding—for,
“Ministers or officials from the devolved administrations to form part of a UK negotiating team”.
In these circumstances,
“The UK lead Minister will retain responsibility for the negotiations and will determine how each member of the team can best contribute”.
This brings us to the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and that was spoken to by a number of other noble Lords following his intervention. He asked what the position is. The Scottish Government—his memory served him well—have put forward a proposal to have a statutory right to attend and speak at all Council meetings that relate to devolved matters. It was one of the six proposals that the Scottish Government put forward in the summer of last year. My colleagues in the UK Government are considering this request along with the other requests from the Scottish Government and will respond, but it should be clear that a statutory right to attend would inevitably have an impact on Welsh and Northern Irish representation.
Perhaps we may therefore look at what happens in practice. At present, Scottish Ministers can and do attend Council meetings when devolved matters are under discussion and do so as part of a United Kingdom delegation. My noble friend Lord Stephen indicated that there have been occasions, although perhaps not many, when a Minister from the Scottish Executive, as it then was—and still is—has led. Indeed, on more than one occasion he represented the United Kingdom, albeit as a Liberal Democrat Minister in a coalition Government representing the United Kingdom. When I was the Justice Minister in Scotland, I sat alongside Mr Blunkett when he was Home Secretary. At an appropriate point when Mr Blunkett thought that the matter under discussion was more relevant to Scotland than it was to England, I spoke on behalf of the United Kingdom.
The crucial point is that we spoke to an agreed United Kingdom line. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is right that on issues such as fisheries there often can be great tensions, but every effort is made ahead of the Fisheries Council to ensure that there is a United Kingdom line to which whoever speaks is expected to, and does, follow.
Lord Wigley
I understand the practicalities and that it is desirable, if at all possible, to have a united line, but does the Minister not understand that there may be a genuine difference of aspiration and that the needs of Scotland may be different from the perceived needs of the United Kingdom? Does that not put the representative from a Scottish Government in a difficult position? They will either speak against the interests of Scotland, which they represent, or speak up for Scotland and go against the agreement.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, that is the stuff of the negotiation that takes places ahead of these Council meetings. It is important that there is that good co-operation. It would not be sustainable for someone in the United Kingdom Government seat at the table to articulate a policy contrary to the United Kingdom view. Obviously, one can imagine that if a Minister from the devolved Administration did not like it, he would not be jumping to be at the meeting speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.
However, these negotiations take place and I recognise enough noble Lords here from my days in the Commons who took part in the fisheries debates. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was the Fisheries Minister and knows full well what the run-up to the December Council meeting in particular, and others, can be like. There is a negotiation to take place and a line has to be agreed in advance, not just between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government but between the Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations as well.
The Duke of Montrose
Perhaps my noble and learned friend will tell me if I am wrong, but my impression is that currently the Scottish Administration feel that they should have the right to send the representative Minister in fisheries negotiations.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I indicated, the request was for a statutory right to attend. In a hypothetical situation, even if they were to be the UK Minister, they would still have to articulate what had been agreed at a quadrilateral meeting as the United Kingdom line. It is important that we recognise that for the most part this process works and has worked well. It is sometimes not the perception that one gets, but a lot of hard work and effort is put into it.
It is also the case that, when Scottish Ministers hold meetings overseas, the United Kingdom’s diplomatic missions overseas offer them the same level of support as they would to United Kingdom Government Ministers and delegations. I certainly can vouch for that. Indeed, that was my understanding shortly after I took office as the Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Executive in 1999. The then First Minister, the late Donald Dewar, indicated to me that the then Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, had made it very clear that he wished Scottish Ministers visiting foreign countries to be accorded the full facilities. Certainly, it was always my experience that the help was very considerable.
It is also important to remember that, when representing devolved issues, the devolved Administrations can play a valuable role in promoting commerce, industry and culture. When Scottish Development International, a part of the Scottish Administration, arranges visits with a ministerial involvement, it works to try to bring jobs, employment and investment to Scotland and the United Kingdom, something which would be beneficial to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, referred to the Länder. Certainly, one of the strengths of devolution is that, whereas perhaps in the past the United Kingdom Government could not readily relate to or have engagement with Catalonia or Saxony, that is a level of engagement that Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers are able to have, which benefits the United Kingdom as a whole.
I fear that this amendment would introduce a statutory requirement which—I have already indicated that I share the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd—would not work. As I have also indicated, there is a memorandum of understanding, or concordat, in place to ensure that any engagement with Scottish Ministers is conducted in a constructive way. I hope that that will reassure Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has facilitated an opportunity to discuss these issues and I hope that he will follow through on what he indicated and will withdraw his amendment in the light of these assurances. This has been a useful debate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for a helpful reply. As he said, it has been a good debate, notwithstanding the manifest flaw in my drafting of the amendment, for which I take full responsibility. Now that the Minister has drawn our attention, or reminded those of us who have seen it and been involved with it previously, to the concordat on international relations, it might be useful to draw it again to the attention of the Scottish Government in the gentle, kindly way in which he is used to doing.
Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd that even people of my age—even people at the age of my noble friend Lord Maxton and upwards—can come up with ideas occasionally. He was worried about sanctions. Let me underline that I am not suggesting this but, for example, if any expenditure incurred by a devolved Administration were ultra vires—in other words, they were doing things for which they had no responsibility whatever—sanctions could be available.
I should like to say how much I appreciated the intervention of my noble friend—perhaps I may call him that—Lord Wigley. Perhaps I can put it this way: we are not used to quite such sensible nationalists in our parts. I thought that his contribution was very diplomatic, sensible and helpful to the debate.
Now we come to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who I suspect, from what I know of him and from his contribution, is not quite used to the hurly-burly of Scottish politics. He will know—if he does not, I will tell him—that all of us here involved in the hurly-burly of Scottish politics are willing to make our arguments in any ring that is made available. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested one the other week. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I have discussed it.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The noble Lord is underestimating the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. When he was ambassador in America and I was on a visit to Washington, he invited me to stay. He added to his invitation, “You’ll have had your tea”.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I knew that he was not from Edinburgh but I did not realise that that stretched to all parts of Scotland. I know what a distinguished diplomatic career the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has had but, with due respect, although there are not any Scottish nationalists here—there is a Welsh nationalist—as my noble friend Lord Maxton said, the invitation has been made to them. Some people within the SNP, notably Mr Peter Wishart MP, would like them to accept. I hope that they will and I urge them to accept the offer to have SNP Peers. Just because they have not accepted, that should not gag this House from debating this matter. We are part of the British constitution and the legislation of this country. It would be wrong to inhibit us because they do not take up the offer.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a good point about the role of the Civil Service in encouraging the SNP in some of their policies in relation to the break-up of Britain. I urge him to take a look at my Amendment 73, because it will give him another opportunity to debate this issue in more detail, particularly some of the astonishing actions of Sir Peter Housden.
I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Morgan, who is a most distinguished Labour historian. I accept his admonition to be careful in this. I would also ask him to have a wee look at what some of the more extreme nationalists are saying. To use the old phrase, some of my best friends are nationalists. I even had some at my famous birthday party, which my noble friend Lord Browne revealed in a previous debate, and I get on with them very well. But we should look at some of the outpourings of the more extreme nationalists. They talk about “English colonialism” as if Scotland has been colonised by England. They liken Scotland to India or some African states and say, “We must throw off the yoke”, when all of us know that many of the colonialists were in fact Scots, not English.
Lord Morgan
I am sorry to interrupt the entertaining remarks of my noble friend. I am glad that he made the point that we do not have that kind of bitter Anglophobia, but there is a danger of throwing out the nationalism of the SNP with the national sentiment of Keir Hardie and the founders of our party. We are the pluralist party, and that is very important.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I accept that. My title, as my noble friend Lord Morgan knows, is “of Cumnock”. Keir Hardie lived there and is buried there. That is why I chose it as my title. One of his planks was home rule. There are some others that I do not agree with quite as much, but with home rule I certainly do.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Indeed. Temperance is one other. I accept what my noble friend said. I shall move on because the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will raise important matters for discussion in relation to finance that we want to participate in.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, raised a very interesting question with regard to Al Megrahi. My noble and learned friend Lord Boyd knows much more about it than any of us here and I do not want to go into the detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I did not like seeing the saltires waved when Megrahi arrived at the airport in Tripoli. I thought that the way in which the Justice Minister in Scotland dealt with it was entirely wrong. However, to suggest, as some people have, that it was Tony Blair who told Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to release Al Megrahi is just manifest nonsense. Even if he had, which he did not, can you imagine them doing his bidding on this? However, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. It is important in relation to co-ordination between the various parts of the United Kingdom.
I want to say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that I forgive him for his disarming intervention, which I really enjoyed. He and I have been good friends for a long time. We were talking about membership of NATO in relation to policy differences. There is also the question of the deployment of Trident. I do not know if I am giving away a secret when I say that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will shortly be publishing a report which might be of interest to noble Lords. I also thought that his suggestion in relation to Canada might have some advantages. We could look at precedents with regard to protocols between provinces and federal Governments as we move towards a more quasi-federal or federal solution here in the United Kingdom.
Last and certainly not least I turn to my noble friend Lady Liddell, the Secretary of State emeritus, who as always made a most helpful contribution. She reminded us that the Malawi co-operation was in fact agreed with the Department for International Development. Interestingly, I was one of the Ministers in DfID when it was agreed. When the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments work in areas that are complementary to the work of the United Kingdom, we help each other and it is really enriching. I can see the Whip making an interesting face at me, so finally I must say that I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(c) section 29(2)(f)”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I shall try to be brief. The issue is covered by a number of other amendments grouped with this one. I was absolutely astonished when I reached page 2 of the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times this week. There was an article by Jason Allardyce which informed me that the First Minister, as a result of negotiation, had been able to get extra powers to raise income tax in Scotland and arrange extra borrowing. No mention was made of this orphan Bill and the fact that this is the product of the Calman commission. So far as I know we have still not had a formal response so we have not heard from the Scottish Parliament whether it is prepared to give legislative consent to it. That tells you everything you need to know about the gymnastic qualities and abilities of our glorious First Minister.
One of the things that is sad about this sad little Bill is that it is actually hugely radical in what it proposes. It will give enormous powers to the Scottish Parliament. It is devo-max, and as we have had reason to discover in our debates earlier today, it is devo-max on issues such as speed limits and so on to the point of absurdity. In this part we are dealing with the heart of huge changes that are being made, but which do not seem to be part of the debate in Scotland. Indeed, we are in an absurd position where the debate is about what further policies could be added when this Bill provides for them. Picking up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in one of his interesting newsletter blogs to his civil servant colleagues, I think that the Permanent Secretary in the Scottish Government described it as,
“lost in the mists of time”,
and no longer of relevance.
I have to apologise to my noble and learned friend. As always I had fantastic help from the Public Bill Office, but I do not think these amendments are brilliantly drafted. What I want to do is in effect get rid of the provisions that give the Scottish Parliament the ability to invent completely new taxes. Not only are we going to have a Scottish income tax, but completely new taxes can also be invented. They can invent a window tax and they can have a local income tax. My noble friend Lord Sassoon is shaking his head; I will happily give way as it might save some time if he is going to tell me that that is wrong. The only thing that stands in the way of those taxes being implemented is an Order in Council which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
I am not going to start on another history lesson, but I thought that the whole point of this place—perhaps not this House but certainly the other place; and this place until 1911—is that it is not possible to raise taxes without the consent of Parliament. This provision in the Bill muddles that principle by allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide on a new tax—let us call it a local income tax, a window tax or something of that kind— and all it would require is the agreement of the Executive in London, which then has to put the proposals to both Houses of Parliament.
When it comes to the politics of this, is that really a proper check and balance on the ability to raise taxes on the people? It seems it would be politically extremely difficult in circumstances where, say, an SNP Administration decided to introduce a local income tax for either House to be able to oppose that with any political credibility. It is one thing to say, as those who argue for devo-max do, that the Scottish Parliament should be able to get all the revenues raised in Scotland and be responsible for expenditure; but it is quite another to provide for the invention of new taxes and for the only control on them to be an Order in Council, which is then subject to a resolution by both Houses.
In short, I do not believe that this clause should be in the Bill. I am very interested as to what new taxes the Government have in mind might be introduced by the Scottish Parliament, which it would fall upon the people of Scotland to pay. I am told that if you do an opinion poll in Scotland, there is great support for new powers—if you ask the people, “Would you like the Scottish Parliament to have new powers”, you will find there is a lot of support for that. However, if you ask the people of Scotland, “Would you like the Scottish Parliament to be able to invent new taxes, which would fall upon you?”, I wonder whether there would be the same level of support. If you asked them, “Would you like the Scottish Parliament to be able to invent and implement new taxes which you do not know about and which have not been discussed?”, I am not sure that that would command support. I find it extraordinary that this hugely radical change in the powers of the Scottish Parliament has not even been discussed in the Scottish media. I would wager that only a handful of people in Scotland are aware of it and of the implications.
This whole clause is not only unnecessary, it is constitutionally improper and I cannot for the life of me think why it should be there. I look forward to my noble friend telling me what problem this clause is meant to remedy and why it should be here. My amendment would simply prevent this happening without proper accountability. I think this is one of the most radical parts of the Bill and seems to be completely undesirable. I do not know whether Calman recommended it or not but I would be very surprised if such an open-ended provision was recommended, given that the Calman commission was so careful in its analysis. I will just forewarn my noble and learned friend of one thing. I am sure that in his briefing he will have lots of sentences that say, “This fulfils our manifesto commitment to implement the Calman proposal”. Well, there are other recommendations in Calman that are not in the Bill and which the Government have set their face against. So I would be careful about using that particular argument. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
I advise the Committee that if Amendment 51A in this group is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 51B due to pre-emption
Lord Sewel
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 51A, which is in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is absolutely right when he draws our attention to the central constitutional importance of the clause. We are dealing with a fundamental constitutional issue—the power to create taxes, which is a defining characteristic of a sovereign parliament. At the moment, the new Section 80B proposed for the 1998 Act reads:
“Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend this Part so as to … specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax of any description”.
Through this amendment, I want to ensure that any change in the tax powers of the Scottish Parliament will be subject to the scrutiny that you have with the primary legislative process rather than that which applies to secondary legislation. The Order in Council route is totally inadequate to secure the degree of political scrutiny that is appropriate and necessary. The granting of a power to enhance the taxing powers of a devolved parliament is not something that should be done lightly, casually or trivially. It should be done only through the process of primary legislation to ensure the absolute, measured, considered and examined scrutiny of any proposal. The order route is inadequate because we do not amend Orders in Council—this House is, rightly, reluctant to vote down orders and they see a very abbreviated form of parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is it not an oddity that this House is not meant to consider taxation at all and yet the Bill provides for this House to approve the order?
Lord Sewel
Yes, and also, if we look at the way in which this has developed, I do not know how we come to this order solution. If you go back to 1997, the tax-varying powers then were subject to a separate question in a referendum and were incorporated in the Scotland Act as primary legislation. The Government today are bringing forward a whole series of tax-raising powers to be given to the Scottish Parliament in primary legislation. Why is it suddenly decided that any new taxes that are not specified in the Bill are going not to be subject to primary legislation but only to what I consider to be the absolutely unacceptable method of secondary legislation and Orders in Council?
I mentioned the 1997 referendum, and we know there are amendments standing in the name of some colleagues dealing with the referendum on taxing powers. I am not in favour of a referendum on taxing powers—although I took a referendum Bill through this House, I am not awfully in favour of referendums. My concern is that taxation and the power to create new taxes are of such fundamental constitutional importance that we run a very grave danger if we devalue the standing of that power and use a way of obtaining them that may be convenient for the Government but is wrong. It must be the job of the United Kingdom Parliament to be able to scrutinise any proposals for new or additional taxes in any part of the United Kingdom, through the proper parliamentary process.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, the two noble Lords who have spoken on this section have made one point with which I very warmly agree—that we are now coming to the real meat in this Bill. This afternoon we were dealing with what I call “tinkering devolution”. This is not tinkering—it is much more serious. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, since the last day we discussed this Bill, there has been a very important development with the Prime Minister’s visit to Scotland and the announcement that he made. He said that if we turn down independence in a referendum, the door would be open to better and greater devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. One of the problems with Mr Cameron—and, indeed, with Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg, too—is that they were all at primary school in 1979, when a similar promise was made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. That was never fulfilled, as we oldies well recall.
My submission to the House today is that the circumstances today are quite different from those in 1979. Alec Douglas-Home was an honourable man, but he was not in a position to influence Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hostility to devolution. One reason why the Secretary of State, Michael Moore, is absolutely right to argue for a swift decision on independence is that we could then have two years left in this Parliament with David Cameron as Prime Minister to fulfil his promise, even though Alex Salmond does not like it.
Talking of Alex Salmond, I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes said earlier. Those who criticised Mr Salmond for his abusive rhetoric towards a BBC producer a couple of weeks back were, I submit, rather missing the point. I have to admit that I both admire and like Alex Salmond. You could put that down to prejudice stemming from our common youth in Linlithgow, where I first saw him as an angelic choir boy in my father’s church. That is not an adjective that I have heard applied to him in recent times. But admiring or liking him does not mean agreeing with him. When I switched on my television on that Saturday afternoon to watch that dreadful Calcutta Cup match, the last thing that I wanted to see was the First Minister popping up to give us his inexpert views. He should be concentrating on governing the country and not looking for camera calls wherever he can. What I admire about him is his chutzpah—but it is also slightly worrying, because there is a touch of “L’État, c’est moi”, as Louis XIV of France was reputed to have claimed. We are told by some people that to be anti-SNP is to be anti-Scottish. It is time that they understood that the rest of us actually resent being told that to be pro-Scotland you have to be pro-SNP. That is not the case.
I have been told by other broadcasters that the Salmond rugby experience was not unique for them and that the SNP heavies have made more regular calls and complaint to newsrooms than all the other political parties put together. That runs at times close to intimidation.
Lord Maxton
Does the noble Lord not think that the strangest thing about that whole incident was Alex Salmond complaining that the BBC was somehow biased against him. I suggest that anybody who listens to “Good Morning Scotland” as I do on a fairly regular basis every morning would know that the exact opposite is the truth.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I was going to go on to say that we are actually seeing a trend towards the attributes of a one-party state, where news bulletins are led by stories of what the dear leader has been doing today. That is a real danger.
There is also the question of vagueness of what independence really means for us financially. Until recently, the official position of the Scottish National Party was in favour of joining the euro, until the problems of the eurozone suggested instead that there was safety in keeping sterling, presumably with all the Bank of England controls. Some independence, that—not for them, apparently, the genuine independence of the Irish punt or the Danish kroner.
On the subject of Denmark, a former Foreign Minister of that country is a good friend of mine and a fishing companion. There was one occasion when the two of us went fishing in Iceland as a guest of the Prime Minister. My respect for them and their countries does not lead me to wish to see a Scottish Foreign Minister with similar limited global influence. I would rather have Scots such as Robin Cook and Malcolm Rifkind, both of whom I disagreed with but who wielded strength as Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom. That is the proper role for Scots in future.
I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, mentioned Trident, not in the context of defence policy but in that of economic and financial policy. The SNP’s little Scotland approach is best seen in its attitude to the Trident missile programme. We Liberals were never in favour of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent in the first place, and we do not wish to see it replaced. The SNP said that it would remove the base from Faslane to have it anywhere so long as it is south of Carlisle. My view is that until we succeed in getting rid of it altogether, it might as well stay where it provides many jobs and helps the Scottish economy.
I still believe that most Scots would like to see maximum devolution consistent with common sense, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was right in describing opinion polls. That means substantially greater financial powers than in the clauses that we are now discussing. I regard this section of the Bill as only one small step in the right direction. It is not a new view of mine or one occasioned by the rise of the SNP. When I took office as presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, I argued from day one that no self-respecting Parliament can exist permanently on a grant from another Parliament and that we should move to the point where the Scottish Parliament has the power to raise the money that it spends on all these devolved issues. This Bill is a significant but small step in the right direction.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Can the noble Lord just say what new taxes he thinks the Scottish Parliament might invent using this power?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I have no idea. The important point is that it should have the power to raise funds as it wishes for all the devolved issues. It is no good going on talking about refining the Barnett formula and changing the grant system. It is up to the Scottish Parliament to devise its own taxation methods and raise the money for its own purposes. That is what I would like to see happen, and this Bill moves us slightly in that direction.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has just expressed. I cannot see the fundamental point of principle that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can see. He spoke of this procedure proposed in the Bill as not providing the necessary and appropriate degree of scrutiny. The people who would be taxed are the people of Scotland who elect the Scottish Government. I cannot see any particular point of principle in saying that they may not determine the form of their taxation. States in the United States of America have a considerable degree of freedom. Local taxes are different all over the United States. In many cases, they have a balanced budget requirement. The people of Scotland, speaking through their representatives in Scotland, cannot determine the level of the Scottish deficit.
Lord Sewel
The argument that the Scottish Executive should have control over the level of taxation is one thing, but the creation of new taxes is a totally different thing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I cannot really see that distinction. I would be more worried about the level if the level affected the balance of the deficit of the United Kingdom. The levels would have to be adjusted so that the tax take in Scotland remained the same proportionate to expenditure in Scotland. But as for the creation of a new tax, going by a different form, if the Scots chose to lower taxes in form A and raise them in form Y, provided that they came to the same amount and had the same effect on the United Kingdom Exchequer, that seems to me entirely up to them. I cannot see a point of principle there.
Lord Sewel
The problem of the deficit is really a red herring, because the deficit would be controlled by borrowing powers.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
If the deficit is not important to the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, what is the answer to mine? It is perfectly possible for the Scots, and reasonable, to decide the form in which they should be taxed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps I could help the noble Lord by asking him a question. If his position is that the Scottish Parliament should be free to invent any tax and raise it at any level as part of the devolved settlement, why do we need to bother with having both Houses of Parliament approving it?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I agree that the Bill proposes a very eccentric procedure. I was going to go on to say that, first, on practical grounds, I would hope that no one would set up differential tax systems inside the United Kingdom. Secondly, I would not disagree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, against the particular procedure for vestigial approval which is laid down here. My argument is on the point of principle of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Those who should be in the lead on the forms of taxation in Scotland should be the Scots; that seems to me to be clear.
I am disappointed with this bit of the Bill—
Lord Sewel
The noble Lord has challenged me on a point of principle. The argument surely must be that macroeconomic policy under the devolution settlement is reserved and, within that, it is absolutely right and proper that the United Kingdom Parliament examines any proposals for new taxation on the basis of how it impinges upon macroeconomic policy, and whether it is fair and would inflict great harm on any part of the economy of the whole United Kingdom.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Yes, that is reasonable. We certainly agree on the macro point. We disagree on whether there is a point of principle about forms of taxation. I would like to pick up on the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about the Prime Minister's speech in Edinburgh. Here, I disagree with the noble Lord, who says that we should proceed to have the referendum as soon as possible, which would give us a couple of years to work out what devo-max means. I do not know why we do not put into this Bill what we think devo-max means, with a sunset clause. I follow the argument that the referendum should have only one question but there is a genuine problem in that the Sir Alec point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, certainly applies in Scotland. People up there do not really believe that the London Government intend, once one has had the referendum and if its answer is no to independence, to confer a further substantial degree of devolution.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
May I finish my argument? That is not widely believed up there. One could set out the definition that this Parliament believes would be right for further devolution. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to agree with me because he does not want any more, but the Government indicated that there would be consideration after the referendum of a further degree of devolution—your Prime Minister said it. I understand why that will not happen unless the referendum says no to independence—that is obvious—but I cannot see why one cannot specify that now.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. He is quite right: I think this is a dreadful Bill which was introduced for political reasons, and that the best thing we could do with it is bin it—drop the whole thing and get on with the referendum. That is my position. However, it is a minority position, and we have the Bill and we are considering it. We are considering a clause on which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who after all was the midwife of the Scotland Act and believes in all this stuff, and I are agreed that it is a huge transfer of power. To me, that is devo-max.
I have no idea what the Prime Minister was thinking of when he said that there would be more devolution after it had been decided that Scotland would remain in the United Kingdom. I cannot think of anything that could be added that is not already in this Bill. This clause which we are considering, for example, provides enormous scope to introduce new taxes, so I would say that this is devo-max. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the people of Scotland do not know about it, because nobody is actually reporting it. We are all debating something that is already here in this Bill, and which was actually delivered by the previous Labour Government—with the support of my party, which I must say was very foolish. Having said that, what does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mean when he says that we should have something added? What would he add to this Bill that would be devo-max? Can he tell me?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That is a very fair challenge and I have no complete answer. In respect of taxation, I would argue that devo-max should be precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, does not want: that the Edinburgh Parliament should be entitled to decide on the forms of taxation. There would need to be the macroeconomic control, which he and I would need to discuss, but the forms of taxation within a given tax take—or rather within a given deficit control, because that is where the control would be—seems to be something which should be devolved in principle. I have made my point and I do not see the point of principle here. I would argue that the difficulty with devo-max is: who is going to specify it? I cannot see Mr Salmond's interest in specifying devo-max, because he wants independence—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wonder whether, when the dialogue is complete, other people might answer your question.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
If the noble Lord will allow me, surely the point he is making is valid. If the post-referendum decision is not to go independent and we take the Prime Minister at his word that more is on offer, it is possible for all the parties—including the SNP, as the Scottish Government—to join in working out the best form of devolution-plus, as I prefer to call it, which enables the Scottish Parliament to raise the money that it spends.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I suppose that my motive, as one who believes in the union and does not wish for Scottish independence, is that it seems that the chances of a vote for Scottish independence would be much reduced if the credibility of the devo-max option had been enhanced by its prior specification. I cannot see who is going to do that and I am rather sorry that we seem to be going to miss the opportunity in this Bill to do it, subject to a sunset clause.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Perhaps I can say a few words on this amendment, as one of the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, describes as being “up there”. I am living in Edinburgh, I am a resident, and I will be voting in whatever referendum we have. I am looking forward to it. I do not think of it as “up there”; it is where I live and what I am part of. This is the amendment on which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I are going to disagree—at last—because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel. We need full fiscal responsibility in Scotland, and we need to move towards that. Some people call it full fiscal autonomy; I call it full fiscal responsibility.
Is it devo-max? As other people have said, I do not know what Salmond means by devo-max. If he means other functions such as welfare or pensions being transferred to Scotland, I am totally against that. It would be catastrophic and cause tremendous problems in breaking up the system that has existed for so long in the United Kingdom. However, full fiscal responsibility is different. Having been in the Scottish Parliament, I know that at the moment it has responsibility for spending the money but not for raising the money. That means that you are irresponsible, and that at any time when you do not have any money you blame Westminster and say that the Barnett formula is not giving you enough. This is the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to: how do you get to full fiscal responsibility?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and we might both get vilified for this, that David Cameron was right. He was right to say that once Scotland rejects separation, and we must reject it, the door will be open for discussions. There will be a dialogue between Westminster and Holyrood about the new form of devolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland is right that we need that yes/no vote as quickly as possible so we can reject separation and move on to discussing what kind of devolution we want. We could have a referendum with devolution options, but it would be far better if the federalist, unionist and devolutionary parties were to work out an agreed formula for the new enhanced devolution and full fiscal responsibility through a convention—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am delighted to be able to disagree with him. Could he table an amendment on Report that includes the elements that he thinks would be added after the referendum that would provide more devo-max devolution? I cannot think of anything, and he has already reserved his position on welfare. What would it contain? This is already in the Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
When we get to the Minister’s reply, I think we will find that it is not already in the Bill in the form that I would like. We need to work out exactly how much is needed to fund the planned expenditure of the Scottish Parliament and to look at ways in which that can be funded through taxes raised by the Scottish Parliament. Some people in Scotland, MSPs and others, including Peter Duncan of the Conservative Party, have come out with a scheme that they call devo-plus. I do not agree with it fully but it deserves looking at. It is one of a number of options that should be looked at for funding Scottish expenditure with income from within Scotland.
Lord Sewel
Way back in the mists of time, I used to construct a series of social surveys. One of them was a series of questions on the powers of local government. We asked people two sets of questions: the first on which powers were at which tier of local government; and the second on whether local government should have more powers. The initial answer to the latter question was always yes. Then we asked what powers they wanted to see local government have, and about 90 per cent of them were powers that local government already had. That is the problem with the “more powers” argument: it assumes that people are fully aware of the powers that the Parliament already has. I simply do not think that that is the case.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wish I had not given way; that intervention was not all that helpful to my argument. If the noble Lord, Lord Steel, David Cameron and I can agree on a way forward, there must be some hope that this rainbow coalition will find out what is best for Scotland and for Britain, and will avoid the dangers of separation and of breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the way forward. I have spoken for quite long enough now.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate because I have not had the opportunity to do the groundwork in order to understand what my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendments are all about. The House is greatly in his debt for bringing to our attention the most extraordinary proposal contained in the Bill. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I got the impression that he was arguing that we should support the Bill because we know that it is a bad Bill and that the financial provisions will not be adequate for Scottish needs. I am happy to let him intervene and correct that if I am wrong, but if he does so I know that several other people have now argued almost exactly the same point. Personally, I believe that if a Bill is bad you should not pass it, which is why in my Second Reading speech I called for it to be withdrawn. To pass a Bill because you know it is bad seems to be fundamentally wrong.
We know that the Bill will not meet the needs of the Scottish finances because in order to do so it would have to ensure that as the Barnett formula was withdrawn over time, Scottish incomes rose at the same level at least as UK public expenditure has done over the years. Research done by a couple of academics, Professor Hughes Hallett and Professor Scott, discovered that in the eight years to 2008 there was a differential between those two measurements of 0.21 per cent per annum. Over a period of time, Scottish incomes were not rising as fast as UK revenue.
There are countless arguments which could explain why the Bill cannot work and that the finances provided by this 10 per cent tax discretion will be inadequate, but that alone seemed to be a telling one. I noticed that the answer given by the Treasury in previous discussions in another place—I would be grateful if my noble friend Lord Sassoon addressed this matter in his wind-up—was that that had been true over the past eight years but would not be true over the next five years because public expenditure has been heavily reined in. I suspect that incomes in Scotland are also being pretty heavily reined in, particularly because there is a higher preponderance of public servants whose numbers are likely to be reduced and whose incomes are being controlled, and partly because the Scottish economy is in a very much poorer state than the rest of the United Kingdom’s.
One could dilate on a whole load of other reasons why the finances will not work, but the provision in the Bill to create a new tax seems to have been inserted subtly and quietly by the Government because they, too, know that the provision will be inadequate. With the Bill we are not talking about a provision to help Scotland take control of its finances and create a new accountability; in fact it is to demonstrate the complete inadequacy of provisions of this kind for Scottish accountability. That means that it is not a Bill at all but a Trojan horse.
Many noble Lords seem keen to use the failures of the Bill, which they all discern, as a springboard to bring in another Bill to create devo-max, if you like to call it that, more high taxation and other measures. Almost every measure that the Scottish Government might like to control in due course, like pensions responsibility and social welfare, will reveal further inadequacies in the Scottish capacity to provide for them once they are transferred out of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords are creating this springboard towards separation where, under what they call devolution, we shall be independent in Scotland in all but name, and possibly ultimately in name as well. That would create a situation that is not what we are supposed to be debating, so the whole debate is being conducted under a cloud of self-deception in the hope that no one will notice that failure is built into the provisions of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth has put his finger on this point extraordinarily effectively, and I am ashamed that I had not noticed it myself when reading the Bill. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to address this issue and explain why the provision is there and how he thinks it will be used in future.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, that we owe a debt of gratitude to both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for the amendments that they have brought forward to this part of the Bill and for the way in which they have put forward the arguments that have opened this debate.
This is the heart of the Bill. It is an important constitutional Bill, as I said in my opening remarks today when the Committee convened. I also said that noble Lords could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the management of its passage through the Houses of Parliament. I regret that. To the extent that I have agreed on occasion to days and dates for the management of the Bill, on reflection I now regret doing that because it is such an important constitutional Bill. No Members of the Committee should be mistaken that this is not a Bill of constitutional significance and of potential practical significance for the people of Scotland. However, without the provision that noble Lords seek to delete with their respective amendments, I do not believe that the Bill could be described in these terms at all. What was left of the Bill would be far less significant. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, said in his evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee that without this provision, this would be,
“a smaller, less impressive Bill”.
Those are the words that he used and they are recorded not only in the evidence that he has given but quite clearly in volume I of the fourth report of Session 2010-12 of the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, to which I shall refer later on because it raises a number of other important and serious issues that need to be addressed before we conclude our deliberations on the Bill. He said that it would be a smaller and less impressive Bill, and that view is reflected in the Select Committee’s report.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I thought my noble friend Lord Maxton said that. I am sorry; it was my noble friend Lord Sewel. If I had had a private conversation with the noble Lord, I might have been able to reveal that beforehand. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in part of his contribution that was very helpful, blew that out of the water. States in the United States of America have, within the federal structure, the ability to raise taxes without being sovereign. Across the world, I am sure there are many other examples that I do not know about of devolved Administrations having the power to raise taxes within constitutions that deny them sovereignty. I am certain that I could find them if I had the research facilities available to me.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will not make a smart-alec point—although I should not say “Smart Alec” in this context in this debate—about other states that can raise taxes. I follow the noble Lord’s argument, which I absolutely respect. However, I respectfully suggest that he needs to distinguish between the ability to raise taxes and the ability to create new taxes. The point that his noble friend and I were making is that this clause gives the Scottish Parliament the power to create completely new taxes. His noble friend argued, as I did, that that is distinct from being able to raise taxes. There are states in the US that can set the sales tax but, as far as I am aware, do not have the freedom to invent completely new taxes. However, I might be wrong about that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Someone had to create the sales tax in the first place. I might be wrong but I do not think that in the United States the creation of a sales tax is a federal function that is then devolved to the states.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
May I just answer this point first, if noble Lords will allow me? I am perfectly willing to try to dredge up examples as I stand here, but it would be pointless. I fundamentally disagree, as does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the difference between creating new taxes and raising taxes is as fundamental as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says it is. There is very little meeting of minds between us in this, but there is no meeting of minds even in relation to that.
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The comparison to the United States is very ill judged. The United States is a federal system. The United Kingdom is a unitary state with devolved Administrations, which is fundamentally different when you talk about sovereignty.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
We have already had the benefit of a very interesting contribution from my noble friend Lord Morgan, which I will read with care, about the Protean nature of sovereignty. I merely responded to the point that I understood my noble friend Lord Sewel to make—that the defining characteristic of sovereignty relates to taxation. He seems to be conceding the point that it does not. I am sure that if we all read what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said this afternoon and perhaps read more extensively what he has probably written on the subject, we will conclude that it does not. I make the point in passing that I do not think taxation is the defining issue of sovereignty.
On the genesis of the power, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked whether it was recommended by Calman. The true answer to that is that it was not, but the power has its roots in the recommendation of the Calman commission, which concluded:
“The Scottish Parliament should be given a power to legislate with the agreement of the UK Parliament to introduce specified new taxes that apply across Scotland”.
I am not entirely sure whether that statement has a sufficient shock effect for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as I think he indicated that he would be surprised if Calman recommended that. However, there can be no doubt that the Bill goes further than this. As I said, the power was not recommended by Calman but it has its roots in the recommendation of the Calman commission.
The Bill goes further than the recommendation, not only prescribing a much wider power for the creation of new Scottish taxes, which is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but allowing for the future devolution of existing UK taxes, as Scottish Financial Enterprise and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, to which I have previously referred, have pointed out. However, there is also no doubt that the breadth of this provision answers a specific call for the further flexible development of the devolution settlement. That is why it is so important to the Bill and of such great significance and cannot be dismissed as a small step. I say that with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. It is a very significant step in the devolution settlement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that it is a pity that this measure has not been accorded due significance in public debates by those who should have known about it.
The significance of the Calman commission’s recommendations as a whole lies in providing a framework for the continued development of devolution in a legitimate and managed way. I support that. However, I argue that if we agree with the principle of greater financial accountability for the Scottish Government—we on these Benches broadly agree with that; I do not think there is much discontent about that on our Benches—the decision over whether additional taxes should be devolved in the future comes down to a decision about the practical impact of such a devolution for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.
Thus, this is not in my view an issue of constitutional principle. The issue of constitutional principle is whether we agree to the devolution of taxes, which is what the Bill is specifically about. Thereafter, it is a matter of the practical requirements of such a power. I hope that noble Lords who think they disagree with me will bear with me as I think that I will answer the point that is milling round in their heads about why this argument is deficient. It is for this reason that we have tabled Amendment 51B, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval for draft regulations on the conditions that must be met by any proposed tax for it to be devolved and the specific consultative procedure that must be followed by the Scottish and UK Governments. It has become a habit in this Committee for noble Lords to say that the drafting of measures may be deficient. The drafting of the relevant amendment may indeed be deficient, but this is the best that I could do. If the Committee and the Government are inclined to support it, we can make it much better between now and Report.
I believe that much of the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Sewel and others about the wide-ranging nature of the power in new Section 80A could be allayed if the Government set out in more specific detail the criteria that will be expected of any new candidate for devolution and a clear process by which those criteria will be applied. I regret that we have got this far without that becoming apparent for the reasons that I am about to go into. The big problem is that Parliament is being asked to approve the allocation of a significant and wide-ranging power to the Executive with practically no information about how this will be used in practice and the safeguards that will exist to constrain it.
Indeed, the Select Committee, to which I have already referred, understood this well. It concluded in its report that it was,
“disappointed that, when pressed, the Secretary of State could not give us examples of the type of tax which could potentially be acceptable … We are also concerned by the absence of any clear process or mechanism by which the criteria will be applied”.
In his evidence, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, set out extensive and broad criteria that he said would need to be applied to any tax for it to overcome the hurdles necessary for devolution.
The Select Committee went on to ask the Government,
“to provide a more thorough and detailed explanation of how this process would work, during the passage of the Bill through this House”.
We should bear in mind that the committee is talking about the other place. I commend the report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee more generally to noble Lords. I do not know how many of them have had the opportunity to read it, but I commend it. I particularly commend paragraphs 92 to 96, although I do not intend to read them out at this time of night, and the evidence of the Secretary of State, Michael Moore, because it reveals significantly the basis of a mechanism for dealing with this issue.
Noble Lords should not underestimate the importance of the power provided by Clause 28, and I do not think that they will do so after this debate. It provides a real and tangible mechanism for the continued strengthening of the devolution settlement and the devolution of further powers. In many ways it is the antithesis of the further undefined devolution that has been alluded to by the Prime Minister of late and, indeed, by the First Minister in his flirtation with the concept of devo-max, whatever that might be.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I hope that the noble Lord might help me. Is he saying that he thinks this clause is too broad in its scope and that there should be some kind of constraint by way of criteria as to which taxes could be invented? As it stands, a wealth tax, a further tax on inheritance or a roof tax could be implemented, although a poll tax is probably less likely. Is he saying that, speaking for the Opposition, he favours some kind of procedure that would constrain the ambitions of a devolved Administration in this respect, or is he saying that this measure goes to the heart of the whole Bill and that it constitutes devo-max?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am not saying that this is devo-max; I am saying that this is the Bill. The Bill is a very significant piece of legislation and a remarkable advance in the potential devolution in Scotland. However, as the noble Lord has pointed out, it is misunderstood and has not been properly explained. Broadly, it is not supported or championed in the observations of those who have brought it to this Parliament. More specifically, it has not been championed by the Prime Minister, who has suggested in fact that it is just a small step and that greater steps can be taken in future.
The people who drafted the Bill and are responsible for it may not have intended to do this, but they have given us the answer to the challenge for the future post the referendum on the issue of separation. They may not know that they have given us the answer but they have. Now they need to build the other part of the mechanism that allows this Parliament—the sovereign Parliament—to play its proper role in deciding what the criteria are in advance of specific proposals of the sort of devolution that can take place. In other ways, they should spell out, as Michael Moore did in his evidence to the Select Committee, the criteria that need to be applied and would need to be met before a tax—either a new one or a part of the United Kingdom’s existing taxation—could be devolved.
We need to amend the Bill to provide that mechanism. I believe that it can be provided by regulation, which is why the amendment has been drafted in the way that it has. At the risk of boring noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I do not think it is an issue of principle, once we establish the principle, as we will by passing the Bill, that taxation can be devolved in this way to the Scottish Parliament. It is a mechanism to make sure that that is done properly and in a way in which the various parts of this deal take their proper responsibilities. That is the bit that we are missing because this Parliament is entitled to be confident that any devolved taxes will be used for the benefit of the Scottish people and the union. It is for this reason that we believe the Government have a duty to enshrine conditions to this effect in some form of legislation—regulations would be quite sufficient. This would provide a clear regulatory framework that can be approved by this Parliament and then used flexibly in the future in the context of a changing settlement between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament —between the United Kingdom and the people of Scotland.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, whom I welcome to our Committee’s deliberations—I do not know how much previous experience he has had of Scottish political matters, but over the next few hours he is in for a crash course—that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee raised these issues in its report on the Bill almost a year ago today. I therefore hope that having had the benefit of a year to consider the matter further—and I am sure the noble Lord has been thinking of nothing else—at the very least he will be able to provide this House with some sort of detailed explanation of the mechanism and criteria to be applied on the use of this power. If he cannot do so, it would be helpful if he provided us with at least some hypothetical examples of taxes that could meet such criteria.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, one thing on which I think we are all agreed is that we are getting to the heart of the Bill. There is a range of views about how significant the changes are in Clause 28, but we all recognise the importance of what we are discussing.
The Government are quite clear that the Bill delivers substantial new powers to the Scottish Parliament—powers that have been included as a result of careful and detailed consideration. I want to focus on what is in the Bill, not on what hypothetically might be in it. The Government have been clear that any consideration of further powers to be devolved is for after a referendum on independence. Let us therefore concentrate for now on what we have in front of us.
I should also say at the outset that as an intruder from outside Scotland and a Briton from elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, suggested, my observation is that to date devolution in Scotland, of which the Bill is part of a continuing process, has been delivered as a result of lengthy discussion, analysis of evidence and cross-party consensus. That was how the settlement was delivered in 1997 and that is how the measures in the Bill have been developed. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s confirmation at the outset that he believes that the tax-raising powers granted in this clause are appropriate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The tax-creating powers in the Bill, as the noble Lord acknowledged, were not recommended by Calman. A phrase, “specified taxes”, was put in there to deal with the uncertainties over an aggregates tax. No one has been consulted or is aware—as far as I can see, and that is what my amendment relates to—that the Bill provides for the creation of completely new taxes. I do not know where that came from. It is certainly not part of the Calman recommendations and has not been subject to any extensive discussion or consultation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lang, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, said that he was not aware of the issue until he looked at the Bill in detail—and he is one of the best-informed people in Scotland on this matter.
Lord Sassoon
If my noble friend would bear with me, we will get to this point and to other points he has made. If he wishes to repeat the points he has made previously, he can do so ad nauseam. However, I say to him respectfully that we have got the point loud and clear, and I will come on to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, the genesis of this power is in Calman. It is a power that has been debated and approved of by committees in another place in this Parliament, as well as in the Scottish Parliament—but I will come back to that. My noble friend completely mischaracterises the debate so far over this power to create new taxes.
We are discussing a number of amendments to an important clause, and I should therefore make sure that we are clear about the architecture of it before I come back to the heart of the arguments. Clause 28 inserts new Sections 80A and 80B into the Scotland Act. New Section 80A provides an overview of the new taxation provisions. New Section 80B introduces a power to add new devolved taxes to those devolved by Clauses 33 and 35, and makes certain consequential provisions applicable to devolved taxes.
Amendment 51A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would remove new Section 80B. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean seeks to remove devolved taxes altogether from the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, thereby preventing it from legislating on all tax matters besides local taxes. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, would provide approval of the criteria and procedures under which new taxes will be considered for devolution by this Parliament before the power could be used.
I propose to outline briefly why the financial aspects of the Bill introduced in new Section 80A, and which I stress my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment seeks to remove, will raise the accountability of the Scottish Parliament and benefit both Scotland and the UK as a result. I very much note what my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said about the importance of accountability. After I have dealt with those issues, I shall address in more detail new Section 80B, the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the arrangements that we propose for the approval of new taxes—the subject of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and on which he seeks assurances. That is a critical element of the construct to which other speakers in this debate did not give proper weight.
New Section 80A introduces the finance clauses in the Bill. It grants significant positive new powers to Scotland, and I should outline the measures in the clauses and why they represent such an important and beneficial step for both Scotland and the UK as a whole. The Scotland Act 1998 specifies that tax policy, aside from local taxes, is outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. The changes made by the Bill that are introduced in new Section 80A will amend the Scotland Act to enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on certain devolved areas of tax policy. The changes will give the Scottish Parliament a real stake in Scottish economic performance because a significant proportion of the budget for public services in Scotland will come directly from taxes set and raised in Scotland. Some speakers have suggested that it would be appropriate to go much further, but we are taking a significant step here. It will enable the full devolution of stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax and enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a Scottish rate of income tax.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, I am not very clear about the Scottish rate of income tax. I am a Scot; I live in Scotland—that is where my home is—but I am paid a pension by Parliament which comes from Cardiff. How does that become part of that? It is paid directly into my bank; as far as I know, they do not need to know where I live; so how do I get income tax variation for Scotland alone?
Lord Sassoon
If the noble Lord will forgive me, we are coming to income tax under the next clause. I am sure that we will come back to that extensively and properly later. This is the enabling clause that enables the setting of the Scottish rate as well as the focus of the amendment on the power of the Scottish Parliament, with the agreement of this Parliament, and subject to safeguards—to which I shall come—to introduce new taxes.
I hope that the Committee will agree with me and the Government that these changes will enable the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to respond better to the evolving needs of Scottish society and the Scottish economy; and that they will increase the Scottish Parliament’s accountability, as its decisions on public services will be directly related to decisions on Scottish taxes.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is nodding in agreement; I hope that that will continue right through this section of the Bill. No, he is saying that it will not; no doubt we will come back to football clubs and other matters later, but we agree so far.
Thirdly, these changes will bring decision-making over the issues that affect them closer to the Scottish people, which we believe is appropriate. New Section 80B will create the power for the Scottish Parliament to introduce new taxes, subject to the agreement of both Houses in this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was quite right to draw attention to the approval process. He seems to want to draw it even more tightly but, on the other hand, he points out—partially in answer to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who seems to think the approval process to be woefully inadequate—that the clause states that it must have the agreement of both Houses in Parliament, which is not necessarily the case with all taxes as it stands at the moment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On that point, perhaps my noble friend could deal with the argument here. If I may say so, he has put it as if it is not a major constitutional point. As a Member of the House of Commons, I was taught that the main purpose of the House of Commons was to vote means of supply; that is its main function. Therefore, the creation of new taxes is a matter which is dealt with thoroughly by primary legislation through a Finance Bill, which enjoys certain privileges. Those matters do not come to this House because this House has no part to play in matters of taxation, following the efforts of the previous Liberal Administration.
It seems to me to be a hugely novel concept that the House of Lords should be involved in approving the creation of a new tax. Can my noble friend explain why that is included in the Bill?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, again, I will get there in the logical flow of the argument, if my noble friend will permit me. He does not make new points; I have them on board; I will try to address them, but I think we should go through the logical steps of exactly what the construct will be, because this is a critical question. I do not dismiss it.
Why is it so important? The power will enable the whole of an existing tax to be devolved and allows for the creation of a completely new devolved tax. That is clear. It is a power recommended by Calman but which the Government are not in a position to devolve at this time so, to that extent, it is necessary to implement Calman.
Lord Sewel
Does the noble Lord accept that there are fundamental differences between using orders and using primary legislation? One of those fundamental differences is that an order cannot be amended. I should have thought that, on the creation of new taxes, it is likely that Parliament might wish to amend such an order when it comes before it.
Lord Sassoon
Again, perhaps I may be permitted to go through the complete steps needed to introduce any new tax.
The Government believe that we have a proportionate and appropriate package. We need to take all the measures in the round. In this case, to address the specific question of the role of your Lordships' House—I will not be drawn into taking all the points out of order, but the question of the role of the House of Lords is important—it is because the power addresses the constitutional question of who should be able to set a tax, not the rate of the tax nor the structure. The question of the introduction of the new tax is indeed one in which this House should have a role, which is included in the Bill and the clause.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend again, but this is central. For the sake of argument, let us say that this power is used by the Scottish Parliament to introduce a mansion tax or a wealth tax. Is my noble friend saying that this House could consider and reject it and that that is practical politics? It seems to me that part of the 1911 settlement was that this House did not get involved in those matters. In a sense, I am here arguing for more power for the Scottish Parliament, not less, because I think that this has not been thought through.
Lord Sassoon
The answer is yes and yes to my noble friend. The introduction of new taxes is a constitutional change to the United Kingdom and a power which will be introduced. I will go through the steps one by one, because we have not debated them all fully so far this evening. One of the steps is for the order to be approved by both Houses of Parliament; the Government believe that to be appropriate. So that is a yes. There may be questions about whether orders can be amended and other questions, but emphatically it is our intention that the order to implement a new tax has to be approved in both Houses. That is clear. My noble friend may look surprised, but that is the case. I hope that that gives him significant comfort.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but it would be invalid under the Parliament Act for this House to express a view and vote on taxes within the United Kingdom.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but those who drafted the Bill, who are quite clear about the centrality of this to the new constitutional settlement embodied here, are clear that it is a proper power to be exercised in the way intended under the Bill.
If noble Lords will forgive me, I would like to go through all the steps. As I said, this is a construct with a number of elements to it and we should look at it in the round. It comes to the heart of the issue that was principally raised in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
There is a technical issue relating to the noble Lord’s amendment which we should get out of the way: the amendment would also impact on the provisions which allow for devolution of taxes on disposals to landfill and on transfers of land. The effect would be to prevent the Scottish Government collecting and managing such taxes or entering into agency arrangements with others to collect and manage the taxes for them. This would be critical if the Scottish Government were to be able to exercise their new tax powers effectively. I park that on one side but it is not an unimportant question.
I now turn to the central question of the power to devolve new taxes. I shall go through this in a way that I hope will give noble Lords some assurances that sufficient and proportionate safeguards are in place to ensure that this power is exercised to the benefit of the UK as a whole. I should also like to explain its importance in raising the accountability of the Scottish Parliament. There are those who are clearly concerned that the power goes too far but there are others who believe that the power does not go far enough. In the middle, we have the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who wants more assurance on the criteria.
First, I come back to the central authority that would be needed for new devolved taxes to be added. They would need to be added by Order in Council, which would be subject to the type A procedure set out in Schedule 7 to the Scotland Act. It is clear that this requires that no recommendation can be made to Her Majesty in Council until a draft has been laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament and by the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, there will be thorough scrutiny of any proposals under this power, including the opportunity for Members of this House to debate fully any such proposals.
What did not get so much attention in this debate were the criteria to be adopted when looking at any new tax. This was a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, focused his remarks but other speakers seem not to have taken full account of these criteria. They are laid out clearly in the Command Paper that accompanies the Bill. I believe that they set a clear framework of guidelines as to how the Government will consider the impact of any new tax proposed by the Scottish Parliament and hence decide whether to devolve it. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I may read out the criteria. They will include the potential for the new tax to create or incentivise economic distortions and arbitrage within the UK; the potential that the new tax might create for tax avoidance across the UK; the impact of the proposed tax on compliance burdens across the UK; and the compatibility of the new tax with EU legislation and rules, such as those covering state aid, the single market and the Human Rights Act. Therefore, there will be a considerable screening process before the Government decide to propose any new devolved tax.
I stress that the foremost consideration here is the need to ensure that any proposed tax will not impose a disproportionately negative impact on UK macroeconomic policy or impede to any degree the single UK market. Taxes will be judged against their potential to create or incentivise economic distortions or to generate avoidance or an impact on compliance burdens across the UK. It is those criteria that will give the Scottish Parliament the flexibility to adopt the policies that it considers to be best for Scotland, while preventing adverse effects on the rest of the UK.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to consider the politics of this, as opposed to what the rule book says. I suggest that we look at the difficulty that the Government have at the moment in deciding whether to legislate on a referendum. That is clearly a matter for Westminster and not for the Scottish Parliament but the Government are doing cartwheels trying to find a way to use Section 30 because they do not want to be seen to be dictating to Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament, with this power, decides to create completely new taxes—perhaps putting up the top rate of tax to 60 per cent or removing the exemption for unearned income or whatever—does my noble friend really think that it will be practical politics for this House or even the other place to say that that is not going to happen because under criterion 4C it will influence macroeconomic policy? That is not real politics. A genie is being let out of the bottle here and we should not deceive ourselves about how radical this is as a proposal. I hope that my noble friend will address this for what it is and not for how it is presented.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, my noble friend’s examples concern changing the rates of existing taxes rather than new taxes. However, I think that it will work fine. With the process that has led up to these clauses in the Bill, Calman has looked at potential taxes for devolution. There has already been considerable discussion in Scotland and between Scotland and the UK Government. When it comes to the potential for new taxes to be added, I have explained the criteria which the UK Government have set down. On procedure, we are working closely with the Scottish Government to clarify the process that requests for new taxes will go through before they are brought before both Houses of Parliament. We have an administrative process to be agreed by the Joint Exchequer Committee, which brings together Ministers from both Governments. Therefore, I see a process here—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
With all these discussions that have taken place, can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Scottish Government have accepted these provisions in the Bill?
Lord Sassoon
Of course we await legislative consent, but there have been many detailed discussions; there have been the reports of committees in both Parliaments and the noble Lord knows perfectly well—better than I—where things stand. As to the question of what fits the criteria, I am not going to speculate about what future taxes might come forward, but one has the useful case study about the Scottish land transaction tax which fits the criteria very well. That points out precisely how other measures could come forward in future.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The Minister said this is following Calman: it is not following Calman at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, Calman recommended a power to deal with specified taxes. Why is the Bill completely open-ended on the subject of new taxes? If there are particular taxes that would fall within the criteria, why not say what they are rather than leave it open-ended? My noble friend criticised me for giving an example of existing taxes; I could think of other examples. Suppose Mr Salmond invents a new tax on oil and gas landed in Scotland, for example. One could think of all kinds of taxes, but to present this as arising from Calman is completely wrong. Calman suggested a limited ability in respect of those taxes which it was not appropriate to do at the moment for various technical reasons. The two I would think of are air passenger duty, which is actually not included in the Bill, and the aggregates tax. This, however, is much, much broader and more far-reaching. Why are we going for such an open-ended position?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, recommendation 3.3 of the Calman report states:
“The Scottish Parliament should be given a power to legislate with the agreement of the UK Parliament to introduce specified new taxes that apply across Scotland”.
In Calman, certain taxes were specified. In this Bill, we are building on that and building in a procedure which is proportionate and would require the agreement of both Parliaments in future to deal with specified taxes—taxes that might be specified in future. I have explained to the Committee what the criteria are. We have an amendment that sought to tease out what they are and I explained them. The critical one relates to the macroeconomic effect. It is entirely right that we take the Calman recommendation and think about how there might be new taxes to be specified in future. It is not some open-ended invitation for the Scottish Parliament to introduce things. There are very clear safeguards, including an appropriate parliamentary procedure in London.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I intervene with some trepidation in this fashion because I made clear in my remarks in this debate that I seek to support this Bill. However, the noble Lord is making it more difficult for me to support this Bill for a few reasons which I will explain, because I want to pose a significant question to him. First, he said in his introductory remarks—which I passed over but I come back to—that these matters were specifically debated and passed by the other place. He should be careful about deploying that argument, given the paucity of debate there was on any of these provisions in the other place because they were timetabled. Quite large chunks of this Bill were never scrutinised at all.
Secondly, he has repeatedly characterised my amendment—which I will not press this evening—as seeking further and better explanation. It is actually not: it is seeking a part of a construct which translates what he has said on criteria and mechanism—which he says is good and is in the White Paper and the Command Paper, and was in the evidence of the Secretary of State—into regulations that this House and this Parliament can debate and decide upon. That is different.
Thirdly, he encourages us to believe that the construct of co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments that has been put in place is already starting to address some of these issues. The joint Exchequer committee that he refers to has met once, on 27 September, which was after the Second Reading debate in this House. This was an issue that I raised on Second Reading; his noble and learned friend the Advocate General for Scotland sent me a detailed letter about what happened about these co-operative processes, but they are not functioning at all. They are barely functioning and no significant progress is being made in relation to the co-operative work that is necessary. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will address the two issues that I have raised in this intervention. The first was about criteria and process translated into regulation. The second was a question: what is happening between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government about preparing for the devolution of this power?
Lord Sassoon
I think that the noble Lord made at least three points. The first concerned the degree of scrutiny in another place. It highlights the very valuable, indeed essential, role that this House customarily plays. It is no different with this Bill. Of course, there was committee scrutiny as well as scrutiny in the formal stages of the Bill.
Lord Sassoon
Perhaps I may answer the questions that the noble Lord has already raised.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I refer to scrutiny and point out, again with some diffidence to the noble Lord, that this is a constitutional Bill. Everything that happened in relation to the Bill happened on the Floor of the other place. The Bill went into Committee there. It was timetabled by the Government and many of these provisions were not debated.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I will not stand here and criticise or question the way that another place goes about its business. We are now giving the Bill—and this clause in particular—appropriate scrutiny, and I will take as long as I need to give appropriate answers to the questions that were raised.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
I refer to the contributions made already. Under the Bill, could the Scottish Parliament reduce corporation tax and increase taxes on oil and gas?
Lord Sassoon
If the Scottish Government came forward with new tax proposals, they would have to meet the criteria that I laid out, which would include provisions on the macroeconomic effect. Clear criteria are set out and it would not be sensible for the Scottish Government to come forward with tax proposals that did not meet the criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether the criteria should be enshrined in some way. It strikes an appropriate balance to have them clearly set out in the Command Paper.
Lord Sassoon
I will give way in a moment. Perhaps I may try to answer some other questions first. The criteria are clearly set out and it is appropriate—
Lord Sewel
On this point, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned on a number of occasions the real politics of the Bill. Following my noble friend Lord McFall, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware of the phrase, “It’s Scotland’s oil”, and of how potent that would be in any debate if the Scottish Government brought forward an oil tax.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am not sure that it is profitable to speculate about what, at some time in the future, a Scottish Government might come forward with. I have set out that there are clear criteria that the UK Government will use to screen proposals. It is very important that the criteria are clear to the Scottish Government—and they are. Secondly—I will give way in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord McFall—it is also appropriate that they are set out, as they are, in a Command Paper, which will give flexibility as circumstances change. The criteria are fundamental and clear.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
Perhaps I may intervene again. I do not have a clue about what the Minister’s answer to my question was. Corporation tax has been a big issue in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is a contemporary issue in Scotland. I put it to the Minister again: could the Scottish Government come forward with proposals to reduce corporation tax and increase oil and gas taxes? I ask for a simple yes or no answer.
Lord Sassoon
The answer is a very simple yes. They could come forward with such a proposal, and the Government would judge it against the criteria. If it met the criteria, it would then go through the procedure of the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have a summary of the majority and the minority reports of the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The Minister will know that the majority report recommended that,
“the Scotland Bill be amended to devolve the full range of financial powers to the Scottish Parliament”.
I spoke with Linda Fabiani MSP just a couple of weeks ago and asked when this report was going to the Scottish Parliament, and she said not until after we have made a decision down here.
We have got deadlock on this. The Scottish Parliament will not consider this report until we have dealt with this, and we know that it is going to recommend something different. Surely, in view of all the criticism that we have had from both sides, and now from the opposition Front Bench, the Government would be well advised at this very minute to take this whole Bill away—we are going to look at it again next month—and reconsider this whole matter, after discussions with the Scottish Executive about how it will be dealt with in Scotland. Otherwise we will be in a stalemate.
Lord Sassoon
I thought that my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would not last terribly long. This is a general point, which he could raise on every clause of this Bill. With all due respect, I really do not know what it has to do with this clause in particular.
Lord Sassoon
I am not going to give way immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, because that would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, one of whose questions I have not yet addressed. I have a short memory so I would rather answer the questions that I have had before permitting another intervention. The third question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was about what progress was being made in the discussions. The joint Exchequer committee agreed that it should meet twice a year, so the fact that it met in September means that a further meeting is anticipated later in the spring.
Lord Sassoon
I listen to all the guffawing going on, but many noble Lords have been in government here and there and will know that there is much good and important work that can and must be done to make such meetings effective. That is what is going on, and good progress is being made, including on the process for introducing a new tax under this Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The question I asked is so important on this issue because the Minister himself said this issue is the central part of the Bill. I thought of this months ago when I asked, in a Question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, why we were going ahead with the Bill. It has become obvious that a huge coach and horses has been driven through a central plank of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lord Sewel.
The best information we have is that the Scottish Parliament is going to reject the Bill. It is, you can shake your head as long as you like, Jim—sorry, Lord Wallace. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us what indications he has that the Scottish Government are going to accept this Bill as it is currently framed, if we agree it.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, forgive me if I stick to the clause as we have it. It is a separate matter, which relates to the whole Bill. I agree on the importance of this clause. Of course there needs to be agreement to the whole Bill in due course but what we are doing today—we are not making a great deal of progress but it is important and we should deal with these important points—is trying to make sure that some of these central clauses are got right. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, sees a coach and horses, because I have not seen one coming from my noble friend or anywhere else in this Chamber.
I would suggest that not all the speakers in this debate have talked about all the elements of the process by which a new tax would be introduced. I suggest that Members of this Committee might like to reflect on what the total package looks like. I believe that it is proportionate, including the criticality of those criteria which are appropriately laid out in the Command Paper. Incidentally, when it comes to the ultimate agreement to any proposals that come forward for new taxes, I remind the Committee that when the variable Scottish rate of tax was introduced in 1998, it was of course passed by this House, so we have precedent in relation to tax matters and Scotland on that variable rate, and on this House having competence.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will my noble friend allow me one more go, at the risk of tedious repetition? Would my noble friend be happy if he thought that this power to invent new taxes was not circumscribed by the criteria, which, as he says, are set out in a Command Paper, which of course can be altered, and which is not part of the legislation? If there were no criteria there at all, would he be happy? If I suspect that the answer to that question is no, does he not see that the political reality is that those criteria will matter not a jot in circumstances where this power is conferred on the Scottish Parliament? That is the nub of what is exercising people on both sides of the House.
I do not mean this in any patronising way, but my noble friend has had a very distinguished career in the Civil Service and in banking. All of us have got battle scars from Scottish politics and know how it operates. He should take the fact that we all agree on this as a clear signal that these criteria that he is hanging on to will not exist in real politics if he proceeds in the way that he plans.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, while I am not steeped in as many years of Scottish politics, maybe the benefit of being a bit of an outsider and coming at this with fresh eyes means that I am able to observe a little of the history of this. Notwithstanding the attempt to say that tax proposals have not been brought forward in any way that has had discussion and consensus to date, including the ones that are the subject of this Bill, the history gives me confidence that this is a construct that will work. This is based on what we have seen in the devolution of powers to Scotland to date, and in the process that has led up to where we are with this Bill—which is not perfect and so other critical steps must be gone through. I do not see this obstacle that my noble friend is putting up. However, we will have to agree to differ on that.
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to the Minister. In citing the creation of the Scottish variable rate for income tax in the Scotland Act 1998, is not the Minister actually supporting my argument that the creation of new taxes and new powers ought to be through primary legislation?
Lord Sassoon
No; the point I made was that it went through this House, as would an order as envisaged here. Any number of points can be made. The principal point I addressed was the question of whether this House would be circumvented in some way by the introduction of a proposal for new taxes for Scotland. The answer is: unequivocally not, whether by an order or by primary legislation.
I would like to move on, because I have now laid out the full process here. It is important to register again the question of accountability, and the importance of the new accountability for the Scottish Government that is given here in the proposal that, for the first time, the Scottish Parliament will have the facility—with the approval of this Parliament—to set new taxes. It means that the Scottish Government will be able to find ways to deliver their desired policy outcomes and potentially raise additional revenue. As well as assisting policy-making in Scotland, the ability to propose tax solutions will itself increase the accountability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, which is of course the main purpose of the Bill.
The measures in Clause 28 will correct an anomalous situation whereby the Scottish Parliament can implement tax policy changes through only what Calman described as the backdoor of local authority taxation. At the moment, only local taxation is devolved to Scotland. Calman noted that the current situation incentivises the Scottish Parliament to achieve its policy aims through local taxes even though they might be more effectively achieved through devolving taxes which are reserved. Again, it is important that we reflect on that point.
Not only that, but introducing makeshift local taxes in lieu of the power to raise them nationally would mean that the UK Government and this Parliament would have no power to intervene even if there were implications for the wider UK tax system. The powers granted here would at least allow for a discussion of new taxes between Holyrood and Westminster that in many cases could result in better outcomes for both Scotland and the wider United Kingdom.
Although I suspect that we may come back to this matter in more detail in later clauses, I want to address in headline terms the question of my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton on whether Scotland will be better off or not. I know that there are questions about what the evidence from the past shows and how much credence should be given to that past analysis. But in simple terms, Scotland will be better off under the proposed arrangement if tax receipts grow faster than public spending than they would under the current block grant system and vice versa. It is not possible to say exactly what the impact will be but the key point is that this Bill delivers accountability to the Scottish Parliament and not a guaranteed financial settlement.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I believe that the prediction my noble friend just quoted is for the five years from 2010 to 2015. I do not believe that but I accept that that is a Treasury view. However, the powers under this Bill will not come into force until about 2015. If my noble friend believes that the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Executive, are keen to have these tax powers, which we have been debating extensively this evening, simply in order to cut them, I cannot agree with him on that either. The fact is that they have vast ambitions for increased public expenditure. My argument is that they will have to increase taxation not just to increase expenditure but to keep the standard of living and government expenditure in the same place.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the directional effect that I have set out for the effect of what is proposed in this Bill compared to the current arrangements is clear. The question that people have is, on particular projections of growth and spending, what the effect would be. Of course, it is possible to give only the worked example of growth and spending based on the current spending settlement round and the current projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is no question that you can forecast for one period or any other period. It entirely depends on the assumptions you want to make about the performance of the Scottish economy and the policy decisions made by the Scottish Government about expenditure.
The key point I come back to is that it transfers a significant amount of responsibility and accountability for this balance to the Scottish Parliament, which of course is fully accountable to its electors. That really goes to the absolute heart of what we are talking about and it is why I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the point.
I think that I should bring this discussion to a conclusion—
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Earlier I was justly chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for calling this a small matter. As the Minister says, it is significant, but does he accept that it is still light years away from what the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Foulkes, and I were talking about earlier, and which we hope might become a future Bill? It would get rid of all this overriding supervision by the two Houses here and simply say to the Scottish Parliament, “You raise the money that you spend”.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I come back to where I started, which is that it is the Government’s position that we have a Bill that is appropriate in the current circumstances. There should be a referendum with a clear question about independence. When that is out of the way, there may be other questions to be asked. For the moment, however, the Government believe that what is being proposed in this Bill is appropriate to the circumstances we are in. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean suggests that this whole thing has come out of thin air and has no support from anyone. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, explained the genesis of it and I have said a bit more about Calman. The Scottish Affairs Committee has welcomed the provision to devolve new taxes and the accompanying criteria, and they have been welcomed by both the previous and the more recent Scotland Bill Committees of the Scottish Parliament and by the Scottish Government. It is therefore completely wrong to suggest that they have come out of a clear blue sky and have no support—before my noble friend chastises me, I do not think that that is a mischaracterisation of his position.
Finally, Clause 28 will provide powers to the Scottish Government to enable greater fiscal responsibility and increase the accountability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It grants both Governments the flexibility to negotiate the best possible solutions for Scotland and for the whole of the United Kingdom. At the same time, we believe that proportionate and sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that powers to devolve new taxes will not unduly damage the coherence of the UK tax system and the single UK market. I therefore propose that Clause 28 should stand part of the Bill and I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, such is my respect for my noble friend Lord Howe, who has been waiting patiently, that I am not planning to respond to some of the points. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister who has dealt with some pretty intensive questioning very well, although I have to say that he has not satisfied me.
I shall just pick up on the last point he made. He presents me as saying that this has all come as a surprise to people. I have to say that I think that what this clause actually does has come as a surprise to people in this Chamber, and it will certainly come as a surprise to Members of the House of Commons because they never discussed it properly. That is what we are here for, and I think that there is more to be done. Of course there is still an opportunity in the debate on whether Clause 29 should stand part to explore these arguments further.
I am not satisfied with the response; none the less I do not propose to test the opinion of the Committee. I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to an Urgent Question tabled in another place earlier today about the Health and Social Care Bill. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity again to set out the purposes of the Health and Social Care Bill. It is to give patients more information and choice, so that they share in decision-making about their care. It empowers front-line doctors and nurses to lead the delivery of care for their patients. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy, and strengthens the voice of patients and the role of local government in integrating services and strengthening public health.
The values of the Bill are simple: putting patients first, trusting doctors and nurses, focusing on results for patients, and maintaining the founding values of the NHS. We are constantly looking to reinforce those values, strengthening the NHS to meet the challenges it faces. We know change is essential: we will not let the NHS down by blocking change.
Throughout the development and progress of this Bill, we have engaged extensively with NHS staff, the public and parliamentarians. The Health and Social Care Bill is the most scrutinised public Bill in living memory. With over 200 hours of debate between the two Chambers and 35 days in Committee, we have ensured that Members and Peers have had every opportunity to examine, understand and amend the Bill to ensure it does the best possible job for patients.
We have made this legislation better and stronger. We have made significant changes to the Bill, including in response to the NHS Future Forum’s work, and we will be open to any further changes that will improve or clarify the Bill. For example, so far in the Lords, the Government have accepted amendments tabled by a number of Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, wrote to their Liberal Democrat colleagues explaining their support for the Bill with those changes and some further amendments they wish to see. They said, for example, how we must,
‘rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS’.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The Bill is about quality, not competition on price. It will not permit any NHS organisation to be taken over by the private sector. It will put patients’ interests first. We will not permit any extension of charging. Care will be free and based on need. Where the doctors and nurses on the ground know that competition is in the best interests of their patients and where it is based entirely on the quality of the care and treatment provided and not in any way on the price of that care and treatment, then competition can play an important role in driving up standards throughout the NHS.
We will not see a market free-for-all or a US-style insurance system in this country. I believe in the NHS. I am a passionate supporter of our NHS. That is why I understand the passionate debate it arouses. But it is also why I resent those on the Benches opposite who seek to misrepresent the NHS, its current achievements and future needs.
We are using the debates in the Lords further to reassure all those who care about the NHS. I am grateful for the chance to reassure all my honourable friends in the House of the positive and beneficial effects of debate in the House of Lords, and of the work we are doing to secure a positive future for the NHS”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement. We are in a slightly odd situation here. We have a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister and a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House to MPs and Peers in their party concerning a matter of public policy involving a major piece of legislation currently before this House. I thought that we could not be further surprised by the parliamentary twists and turns of this Bill, but it is really a case of “Whatever next?”. Is it the first time that a serving Deputy Prime Minister has decided to send a letter suggesting amendments to his own Government’s legislation? This letter seems largely to concern Mr Clegg saying that he wants more amendments to the Bill and expects this House to deliver them so that Liberal Democrat MPs can support the said amendments in the Commons. It is not clear to me whether the Minister in the Commons, or even Conservative MPs, will do so as well. Remarkable!
I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Minister to answer this question, but I am going to ask it anyway. How exactly does he think that the Liberal Democrats propose to achieve this target set by Mr Clegg in this House when they are part of a coalition wedded to this Bill in all its glory—and Part 3, too—and the Lib Dems command 70 to 80 votes in the House on a good day? Who will deliver Mr Clegg’s amendments to Part 3 of the Bill, I wonder? Will it be done by consent with the Government or will it be by Division?
I would like to ease Mr Clegg’s dilemma in this matter and make a very generous offer. The Liberal Democrats can have our amendments to Part 3 of this Bill. We have a great set of amendments to Part 3 which would serve to deliver what Mr Clegg and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, say that they seek on competition and, indeed, more. So I look forward to the Minister’s response to my offer.
However odd the mode of delivery, it is important to ask whether this is a major announcement of a change in government policy and, indeed, was the text of the letter discussed with and agreed by No. 10 and Mr Andrew Lansley. This development has added to the considerable confusion about what government policy around the Bill is exactly, and I think that Ministers need urgently to clarify what precise changes are being proposed, what discussions have been held with the Deputy Prime Minister and whether these policy changes now represent government policy. I ask this because we know that Mr Clegg has to manage the challenge of the Lib Dem spring conference—and a challenge it is certainly shaping up to be. According to today’s media, the Liberal Democrat health activists are planning to put an emergency motion to the party’s spring conference urging their leadership to reject the provisions of the NHS reform Bill despite, presumably, the final changes advanced by Mr Clegg and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in this joint letter. Certainly this letter and that conference, combined with the growing tumult against the Bill—another royal college might bite the bullet and say that it wants the Bill to be withdrawn again; I think that there are only about two more to go—put the discussions that we will have on Part 3 in your Lordships' House next week in an interesting light.
This is an odd way to develop and announce policy—or is it shift in policy? Yesterday morning, the Minister, Simon Burns, was insisting the whole Government backed the Bill “as amended now”. At the same time sources close to Mr Clegg, whoever they may be, were insisting the changes that he is demanding are,
“significant and not simply reassurances”.
However, at the same time the PM’s spokesperson said,
“we do not see any need for further significant changes to the Bill”.
We need to know which of these is correct. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to enlighten the House.
This letter states that,
“we want to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS. That is why we want to see changes made to this bill that have been put forward by our Liberal Democrat team in the House of Lords to make sure that the NHS can never be treated like the gas, electricity, or water industry”.
That is exactly what I have been saying all the way through this Bill. The letter proposes four broad changes. The first is that we should remove the reviews by the Competition Commission from the Bill. In fact, amendments to that effect where tabled by the Labour Party. Imitation being the greatest form of flattery, I am very happy that the Liberal Democrats are tabling them again. Secondly, the letter suggests that we keep the independent regulator for foundation trusts, Monitor,
“to make sure hospitals always serve NHS patients first and foremost.”.
Well, hurrah! We have an amendment down that does exactly that. Thirdly, the letter proposes to,
“introduce measures to protect the NHS from … threat of takeover from US-style healthcare providers by insulating the NHS from the full force of competition”.
Mr Clegg might just have noticed the threat that competition posed when he signed this Bill a year ago. Finally, it proposes,
“additional safeguards to the private income cap to make sure that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profits before patients”.
Well, the amendments that the Liberal Democrats have promoted so far on this certainly need some thought and some change. We would agree with them and we shall see. This is all familiar to us on the Labour side, because those proposals were part of the substance of our amendments in Committee which were so soundly and roundly rejected by the Minister. Is he about to resile from his earlier position and embrace the Labour amendments? I would appreciate some notice if that is what he intends to do.
I have a few questions. The document issued at the Conservative away day last Friday said:
“If we changed or altered the bill now, we would end up in a no man's land, and chaos”.
Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government's position? Can he clarify whether the changes outlined in the Deputy Prime Minister's letter now represent government policy? His letter promises,
“additional safeguards to the private income cap”.
Can the Minister explain what these additional safeguards are, and why the Deputy Prime Minister feels that they are necessary? Why does the Secretary of State seem to have no regard for the views of health professionals and the public when it comes to making changes to this health Bill but is quite happy to make concessions to accommodate the Liberal Democrats before their spring conference? Will the Minister clarify whether these amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill are “significant”, as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister, or a “reassurance”, as stated by the Prime Minister's official spokesperson?
In 2009, the Prime Minister said:
“There will be no more of those pointless re-organisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos”.
It seems to me that the Secretary of State has seen a clear example of unmitigated chaos in the latest incarnation of his Health and Social Care Bill. Really, this is a most unloved and unwanted piece of legislation and the Bill should be dropped. In conclusion, the Minister has my deepest sympathy in dealing with this Statement, because it seems that it puts him between the rock of Andrew Lansley and the hard place of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Williams, and their colleagues—probably not a comfortable place to be. Actually, this is not the way to treat Parliament and its consideration of this Bill. It is not the way to treat the people who work so hard for the NHS and, indeed, it is not the way to treat our NHS.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she was surprised by the letter in question. I can tell her that nothing in the letter was in any way a surprise to me, for the simple reason that it reflects the very constructive discussions that I have had with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, which are a natural part of good government. I can only conclude that she does not recognise that such discussions are a part of good government, but it certainly is the case with the coalition. As far as I am concerned, Mr Clegg needs no permission to bring members of his party up to date with progress on the Bill or to make it clear, as he does, that he is fully behind it.
The noble Baroness asked about the changes that Mr Clegg and my noble friend Lady Williams have outlined in the letter that they would like to see. I simply direct the noble Baroness’s attention to the Marshalled List for the Bill; there are a number of amendments already tabled and discussions continue on a number of other issues. Are the changes that have been made significant? I say to her that any amendments we accept are significant, and the amendments made to the Bill are largely about reassurance to those noble Lords who are unclear, uncertain or worried about the Bill and what it says. They are about delivering greater clarity and making sure that the Bill delivers on its intentions. I have been very happy to accommodate the concerns of Peers of all parties who have come to speak to me—not simply my Liberal Democrat colleagues—because the function of this House is to make Bills better, and we are certainly doing that with the Health and Social Care Bill. A prime example of that, surely, was the fruitful discussion that we had across the party divide on the Secretary of State’s powers and duties, and I believe that the resolution of that matter was very satisfactory.
With regard to the issues themselves, it would not be appropriate for me to give a running commentary. The place for debate on each issue is surely our debates on Report. We are in the middle of the Bill; we should not attempt to engage in substantive discussion on matters of policy now when we still have four more days of Report ahead of us. We are open to constructive discussions with Peers of any party to make the Bill better, just as we listened, contrary to the assertion of the noble Baroness, to members of the public and members of the medical profession in their thousands during the listening exercise last year. We listened, paused, reflected and amended the Bill extensively. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that nothing has changed in that respect, and my door is open to her as it is to anyone else.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his ever-open door and his willingness to listen. Will he further explain to the House how he believes that the NHS will be stronger for the scrutiny from all sides of the House? How does he believe that the objections of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and other professional bodies have been met as a result of this cross-party scrutiny?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend. I feel that the debate and discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House have made this a better Bill, as I said a moment ago. Again, a prime example of that is the clauses relating to ministerial accountability. With regard to the Royal Colleges, we have made all sorts of improvements, such as those in response to concerns about the integration of services, education and training, research, health inequalities, ensuring that competition is never an end in itself and a number of other important issues. I am glad that these changes were all welcomed by a wide range of Royal Colleges.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has just said, if I came to him over the next couple of days and handed him a document about the problems that it is felt will be experienced in specialist services, would he then deal with it before the completion of Report and let me have an answer?
Lord Crisp
My Lords, like, I suspect, every other Member of your Lordships’ House, I very much respect the way in which the Minister has handled the Bill and his willingness to engage in debate. I sit here as a Cross-Bencher listening to what seems to be the healing of a rift between the coalition parties, if I may put it like that, but I also see—my postbag is full of this, as I am sure everyone else’s is—a rift with the medical profession, the nursing profession, midwives and others. Even though this approach may deal with some of the issues that they have wished to raise, I do not see that it will deal with the much more fundamental issue of the loss of trust and unity that seems to have been created as part of the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister say something about how he believes that that will be handled? These issues go far beyond your Lordships’ House, as we all understand.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is right. The stance taken by a number of medical bodies and members of the medical profession is of course a matter of great regret to me and my ministerial colleagues. I say to them and to the noble Lord that once the Bill has been approved by Parliament, as I sincerely hope it will be, that will be the time to re-engage with the medial profession and work with it to ensure that the Bill delivers on the promise that we have held out for it and that we still believe in. The principles that the Bill embodies, which the medical profession has always said that it supports, can then be given substance in the form of the improvements that we would like to see delivered to patients. From all the comments that I have heard from doctors and others who are in doubt about the Bill, most of their concerns revolve around its implementation and what it will mean in practice, rather than the principles that it enshrines. We need to look forward collectively and work together to make the NHS work better.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I, too, applaud the noble Earl for the way that he handles this very difficult Bill in very difficult circumstances. I am sure he is aware that there is a lot of concern about the Bill in the field of mental health, particularly as private provision gathers pace. Can he give any assurance to mental health professionals and services up and down the country about what in the Bill might protect mental health services in the future?
Earl Howe
Several things in the Bill are new. One is the duty to reduce health inequalities, which is very important in mental health. Another is the duty to promote integration of services. Again, we have had many debates on that and there are mechanisms that we propose to use to support greater integration of services.
I also believe that the worries about competition are misplaced. Competition is a tool that commissioners can use, or decide not to use, in the interests of patients. It is no more than that. The Bill does not change competition law or increase the scope for competition to be used in the NHS. It leaves the decision-making to commissioners on whether competition does or does not serve the interests of patients. There is a lot of misapprehension about what the Bill does, not just among those in the mental health world but more widely. I hope that that reassurance is helpful.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I apologise to the Minister for being the cause of another late night for him. I apologise because, obviously, the Statement relates to some extent to the letter that I co-signed with the Deputy Prime Minister. I simply say, as have many in the House, that the Minister has shown amazing patience. Indeed, his door is always open; a number of us stumble our way through it and we are extremely grateful.
I shall say just two more things about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. First, a great deal of the concern that has been expressed in public was expressed before some of the very recent changes, which are not widely realised or well understood among the public or the media.
Secondly, it is probably fair to say that Chapter 3 has been the centre of much of the concern about the Bill. There are other things in it that many people will widely recognise and accept, not least the work on education, training and research. This is not yet widely known, even within the medical profession. It may be that there is a great deal to be said for making a further attempt to get across exactly what changes have been made to the Bill. I think that would carry with it a rather different attitude among the public and the media from what has existed in the past few weeks.
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to my noble friend and agree with everything that she said. Many of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill—not just those made in your Lordships’ House but those that were made last year—have not been fully appreciated, or appreciated at all in some quarters. The changes that we have made are not sufficiently understood even by those who recognise that amendments have been made to the Bill. Without naming names, I have spoken to very senior members of the medical profession who have had no idea at all about some of the amendments that we have made to bring greater clarity to the Bill and change it substantively. As my noble friend knows, we did that in particular with Part 3 of the Bill. There is no doubt that there is a job of work to do to put over the correct messages to the medical profession and to reassure its members that this Bill does not represent a threat to them or to the NHS—quite the reverse.
Lord Patel
My Lords, although many of the comments that have been made relate to amendments that have yet to be presented to the House, particularly to Part 3 of the Bill relating to competition, does the Minister agree that there are other amendments relating to other parts of the Bill that are of broad concern to people outside the House: namely, those relating to public health issues and how public health will be delivered, and that we also need to address those amendments?
Earl Howe
Of course, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord. It is a matter of regret to me that the commentary on the Bill hardly ever focuses on the proposals it makes for public health, which have generally commanded widespread approval. However, I recognise that there are concerns around the detail of those proposals. That is why we are here as a Chamber to address those concerns. I am sure that when we come to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, this House will not be found wanting in the way that it explores those issues and resolves them.
Lord Martin of Springburn
The noble Earl has repeated a Statement made in the other House by a Cabinet Minister responsible for health. We have also heard mention of the Deputy Prime Minister supporting the noble Baroness’s amendments. The Deputy Prime Minister is clearly a Cabinet Minister. Therefore, we have two Cabinet Ministers in the picture. If everyone is so enthusiastic about the Liberal Democrat amendments —the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was kind enough to tell us that those follow her proposals, and imitation is the best form of flattery—does it mean that everybody is happy? However, the only piece of the jigsaw that I am concerned about is whether that means that the Conservative Party will support the relevant amendments. If that is the case, they will all go through on the nod and everybody will be happy. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me whether I am wrong and I have missed something.
Earl Howe
Far be it from me to say that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, would ever miss anything; he is too wise a head for that. I see nothing strange or amiss in a party leader wishing to address his parliamentary colleagues on the eve of a party conference to bring them up to date on a major Bill and its progress in the House and to set out some of the remaining concerns that he has that we need to settle. These concerns came as no news to me as I have been talking about them regularly not only with Liberal Democrat colleagues but with other Members of your Lordships' House and members of the medical profession. I see nothing amiss in the letter spelling out those concerns. How we arrive at a resolution of those issues is yet to be seen. As I have said, amendments have already been tabled which we shall debate. It is possible that more will be tabled over the days ahead—I do not rule that out at all. However, the noble Lord should not forget that there are non-legislative ways of reaching the destination that some of my noble friends would like to get to. There are many ways of achieving some of these objectives. It is entirely possible that we shall agree amendments to do that but that is not by any means the only course open to us.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am a little confused about all this, and I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can help me. I received the letter yesterday. At the top it stated, “Keep this completely secret and do not tell anybody”. I switched on the television and there it was. I am confused because I watched and listened to the exchanges in the House of Commons this afternoon, which, I have to say, were a great deal more vigorous and bad-tempered in many ways than the exchanges here; and I congratulate the noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench who did a much better job of responding on this matter than her colleagues in the House of Commons.
However, here we have the Labour Party, which in government made major strides towards introducing competition, privatisation and commercialisation of the health service, and now has been very strong indeed in opposing those matters when it comes to the Bill. I do not understand that. The other thing that I do not understand is that if what the noble Baroness says is correct—that many of the things she and her colleagues have been putting forward at Committee stage and have been saying outside this House are now being put forward by Liberal Democrats in the amendments that we were told about in the letter from my noble friend and my party leader—why is she not standing up and offering her help, with some enthusiasm, instead of being so grumpy about it all and the way in which this has been done? There seems to be huge confusion on the Opposition Front Bench and in the opposition party, and I wonder if my noble friend can suggest any gentle therapy that it might take up to help it with this problem.
Earl Howe
I am very happy to pick up that challenge from my noble friend; in fact, I have been using all my charms and skills on the Benches opposite without any effect at all. I feel that I may have arrived at an impasse. My noble friend is absolutely right because the situation that we inherited from the previous Government was in many ways one that we embraced—it was they who opened up choice in the NHS and indeed put a right of choice into the NHS constitution. However, they did not roll out competition and choice in the way that was appropriate and right, because it cannot be right to impose competition on the NHS whether it wants it or not. It cannot be right for there to be preferential prices for the private sector, with the NHS being disadvantaged. It cannot be right to have an explicit target of increasing private sector provision in the NHS, which is what the previous Government had. It cannot be right for private providers to cherry-pick the easy cases and leave the NHS with the hard cases. We do not approve of fragmenting care pathways.
We do not think that the previous Government thought nearly hard enough about how this was all to be regulated, which is why we want a sector-specific health regulator. That is the reason for having Monitor and is why we think the provisions of Part 3 make sense because they are in the interests of patients and the NHS. I still hope that in our debates I can engender some movement on the Benches opposite to recognise that we are actually trying to improve the situation that we inherited for the benefit of everyone.
Scotland Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As your Lordships will see from the Marshalled List, I gave notice of my attention to oppose the Question that Clause 29 stand part of the Bill. When I gave that notice, there was at least one good reason for doing so. There are now at least three good reasons for doing so—perhaps more. I shall refer to only two.
The first has emerged from the debate that we just had. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, going to reply to this? Oh no, it is the poor noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will recall that many weeks ago I raised a question about the wisdom of proceeding not just with Clause 29 but with every clause, given what was happening elsewhere—given that the Bill and Calman had been overtaken by events. As I said in an intervention on the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, earlier, we now know that the Scottish Parliament will not be discussing either the majority or minority report from its committee until we have decided. The indication from the majority of the committee—contrary to what was said from the Front Bench opposite earlier—is that it did not support the provisions of the Bill but wanted it to go further. The minority supported it, but the majority wanted it to go further. It seems daft to press ahead with the Bill, including Clause 29, until we have some indication that, if we pass it, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will accept all its provisions. I hope that that point can be dealt with.
My second point is one of which I gave the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, some intimation. The clause mentions,
“amendments relating to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs”.
The noble Lord will be aware of the unfortunate situation regarding Rangers Football Club, which is in administration in Scotland, where Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is owed a substantial amount because of an arrangement that Rangers Football Club entered into to avoid paying tax. It set up a scheme so that when its players received payment, it was paid not to them as salary but to a company set up for their advantage. As the noble Lord will be aware, as a result, there is a major dispute between Rangers Football Club and the Revenue and Customs about whether that money is due to the Revenue.
There have also been suggestions that the Scottish Government might help Rangers Football Club in its difficulties. I make no comment about why that has arisen, who is to blame or whether the Scottish Government would be wise under any circumstances to make any payments to help the club. All I am asking is: do any of the provisions in Clause 29 or elsewhere in the Bill change the arrangements in which Rangers currently finds itself, or would the circumstances be exactly the same after the Bill’s passage? Those are the only two points that I want to raise. Foolishly, we are pressing ahead with the Bill, but I take this opportunity to ask that question and, I hope, to get an answer in relation to Rangers Football Club.
Lord Lyell
My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary patron of another Titan of the Scottish football game, which I call “Athletico Forfar”—Forfar Athletic. I get a trifle worried when I hear outpourings in the media in Scotland along the lines that something must be done to help Rangers Football Club. A great football club it may be, but I wonder how it got into that condition. The answer to that can wait, but perhaps my noble friend could write to me with an answer to the following question. Why in the winding up of a football club such as this—perhaps under Scottish insolvency law; I am not sure—is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs not a preferred creditor? South of the border, HMRC is an ordinary creditor. However, I had understood that north of the border HMRC was a preferred creditor and would therefore get the first bite in relation to the sums owing. If my noble friend could write to me on that at some stage, I should be most grateful. I thank him for his patience.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, for all the reasons that I set out in my first contribution to this Committee when it convened some time ago to consider the Bill, I want to see this Bill passed. Consequently, I support the devolution of the tax powers to the Scottish Parliament and I want to see Clause 29 stand part of the Bill because, without that mechanism, the amendments relating to the commissioners for Revenue and Customs will not be able to work. I do not intend to delay the Committee with any debate or argument about what I think is genuinely a technical part of the Bill in terms of the mechanism for the implementation of its provisions.
My second point is by way of a bit of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, whom I welcomed to the Committee earlier. He had an interesting baptism in the Committee. I am sure that he enjoyed the hour that he was at the Dispatch Box engaging, as he did, with my noble and learned friends and noble Lords around the Chamber. If he thought that that had a distinct quality about it, then he ain’t seen nothing yet if he succumbs to the invitation to engage in a discussion about the position of Scottish football clubs. We have already had a reference to behaviour on the internet with cyberattacks and so on, but the nature of the comments that will be unleashed on the internet if he is unwise enough to be attracted into debate and discussion about the health or welfare of any Scottish football club will be worse than he has ever seen.
Lord Maxton
Does my noble friend agree that perhaps that is why Mr Alex Salmond has decided that he is switching his loyalties to rugby?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Taking my own advice, I am utterly reluctant to express any opinion that is even marginally related to any football club in Scotland. Most people in Scotland know where my allegiances lie, and engaging in this debate would make it even worse for me. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who has been engaged in Scottish football. His support for Heart of Midlothian Football Club is well known and he has made an important contribution to Scottish football over the years. However, I think that he probably has more scars on his back from that time than he has from any political confrontations in Scotland. I just give the Minister a bit of gratuitous advice: he would be wise to take these matters away and perhaps write some very carefully worded letters to my noble friend and his noble friend if he thinks that these questions need answering.
I want to raise a point that I mentioned in my contribution to the debate on the previous group of amendments. I do this by reference to my contribution to the Second Reading of this Bill, which took place on 6 September 2011. During my contribution to that debate, I asked about the progress of the high-level implementation group and the joint Exchequer committee, which are complementary elements. The joint Exchequer committee, led by Ministers, and the high-level group of civil servants—from both the Civil Service that supports the Scottish Executive and the UK Civil Service—are to work out the process and deal with the challenges and issues in preparation for the implementation of the provisions that we have been debating when this Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will.
I raise this because I have a suspicion—and I put it no higher than that as I share my motivation with the Committee—that perhaps from the Scotland side of this process of engagement there is less willingness to engage, and less capacity to engage, in the preparation for these issues than we will need if we are to meet the expectations that we all share that these devolved powers will be available to be used for the benefit of the Scottish people, broadly by about 2015. I do not expect the Minister to make any comments at the Dispatch Box about willingness, but I would be able to deduce from the detail of his answers whether there has been that willingness.
I raise this issue for one very good reason. There is an impression in Scotland that the Scottish Government are anxious to get their hands on these additional powers. In fact, they want more. It is not sufficient to say to the Scottish people that you want these powers; you have to explain to them what you are going to do with them when you get them and you have to convince the Scottish people that you are preparing yourself for these powers and for the use of them. I went on at some length at the beginning of this Committee about what I thought was happening in Scotland, and there was convincing evidence that the Scottish Government were falling down in all of those respects.
Therefore, can the Minister tell the Committee not just how many times the high-level implementation group has met but what progress is actually being made? Even if it has to be described generically, I will be satisfied by that, but I will keep pressing as long as this Bill is before this House to get more detail. What progress is being made to prepare the structure in Scotland to receive these powers or any powers that relate to the raising of taxation?
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I apologise to the Committee that I was not present through the earlier parts of the discussion of Clause 29, but my noble friend is making one of the most critical and crucial points in relation to these tax-raising powers. I would be interested if, when the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, replies to him, he could put some figures on to the costs of implementation. He will know well that one of the essential ingredients of analysing the effectiveness of any taxation is the cost of collection. In this case, it is not just the cost of collection that we need to know about; it is also the cost of disaggregation of HM Revenue and Customs and the cost to the overall UK taxpayer, not just the Scottish taxpayer. If the noble Lord does not have those figures available at the moment, I would be grateful if he could give them to us in due course.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My noble friend Lady Liddell—through me as a conduit—raises some very interesting questions for the noble Lord. I expect that, because of the nature of the amendments in further groups, we may get an opportunity to explore in more detail the issue of the cost of implementation of these provisions and of who should bear that cost. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s very pertinent question.
I have dealt with the high-level implementation group. I am interested not only in how often it meets but in what it does and in whether we are making genuine progress toward creating the infrastructure that will be necessary for Scotland to receive these powers. I have said before that almost all members of the Scottish Government voted in the Scottish Parliament for these tax-raising powers. Therefore, I expect them to be at least beginning the process of consultation with the people of Scotland on how they intend to use them. If they are to be ready to use them by about 2015, and if they are to give the people of Scotland a level of consultation that devolution has conditioned them to expect, they should be beginning to draft the documentation to put before the Scottish people that explains how they intend to use the powers.
It does not matter whether this is devo-plus or devo-max. Whatever powers the Scottish Government have in relation to tax, they should be getting ready to implement them. As I said earlier, there is an extraordinarily interesting debate and discussion to be had in Scotland about how stamp duty land tax could be used to help to inject energy into the economy in different parts of Scotland. I am not an expert in these areas, but I know from representing for many years a constituency in Scotland that using taxation revenue in a more localised way at least has the potential to generate economic activity. I would like this explored further. If the debate and discussion reveal that it cannot be used in this way, at least that would be a conclusion.
There are two aspects to this. First, there is the engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments and their respective civil servants on planning for this. Secondly, there is the question of fitness and preparation, and the condition that the Scottish Government are putting themselves in to exercise any devolved taxation powers. I see no evidence of any of this in Scotland.
I turn to the joint Exchequer committee, about which the noble Lord and I have already had an exchange. I asked about the committee at Second Reading and was told that it was anticipated that it would meet for the first time on 27 September. My earlier intervention implied that I thought that that was a bit late when one considered how long the process had been in gestation and how long the Bill spent in the other place and here—but I had to live with that. The committee met on 27 September. The noble Lord implied that when it met it made progress on some issues that were aired in the debate on the previous group of amendments, which dealt with some of the challenges that people had identified.
My information, which was provided very graciously by the Scotland Office, is that the committee met and there appeared to be some agreement on a set of principles on the block grant adjustment mechanism. Apparently, three principles were agreed that will apply to the mechanism for the adjustment. The first is fairness. It is not defined, but we all know what it means. The second is resilience in different fiscal circumstances. The third is the avoidance of unintended consequences, including the transfer of resources one way or another. It may be my fault, but the principles do not tell me very much about the nature of the agreement. They smack a little of motherhood and apple pie and do not seem to engage with some of the difficult and challenging issues that the devolution of tax powers to Scotland will inevitably generate, some of which we have already debated.
Certainly, if the committee is not to meet again for another six months, unless the high-level implementation group is drilling down into some of these difficult issues and starting to display a level of competence and ability in dealing with the infrastructure that is necessary for implementing this, these meetings of the joint Exchequer committee are not going to make very much progress. Before this House gives its approval to this Bill and it becomes an Act—I fervently hope that it will and I will do everything in my power to achieve that—I ask of the Minister that at least we spend some time getting some sense and some idea of whether Scotland, its Government and its Civil Service will be in any shape to actually use these powers if and when we pass them.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, this is proving to be an education, not least because we have another debate in which there are some points on which I can see the direct relevance to the clause we are discussing and a number of other points on which I am struggling a bit. They are all important points; I am just not quite clear what the connection is with a clause that has to do with the powers of HMRC.
Of course, the football question is directly relevant, and we must deal with football. I declare an interest here as a season ticket-holder of Arsenal Football Club —things are looking very good.
Lord Maxton
The noble Lord might be aware that Mr Ally McCoist, the manager of Rangers, was complaining bitterly because one of the things the new owner of Rangers had done was to sell the shares in Arsenal Football Club which apparently Rangers had held for a very long time.
Lord Sassoon
There is another thing I have learnt this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
I appreciate that this is very dangerous territory. The important point about the football is that this is a clause about the powers and duties of HMRC in relation to Scottish affairs. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, was trying to set a trap for me by getting me drawn into the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer, because of course the powers we are talking about here define, among other things, where information can be shared and what the limits are. If he was setting me a trap, I am doing my best not to walk into it—he was not setting me a trap, good. He will understand that I cannot possibly comment on the tax affairs of any individual taxpayer. I will simply say that there is nothing in the Bill that would change the circumstances of an individual—or a company—who is overdue in paying taxes to HMRC.
My noble friend Lord Lyell asked whether there was a difference between preferred creditor and ordinary creditor status between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I must confess that it is not an issue I have in the front of my mind, and I will write to him. I am sure it is a very important question, not only for football clubs.
Lord Sassoon
I think that probably deals with all the football questions, and with probably just about everything else that was directly relevant to this clause. I will try to deal with some of the other things.
We came back to the big picture question of the legislative consent Motion. It is of course for the Scottish Parliament to choose to bring forward the Motion at any time; it is in its discretion. It must be in the Scottish Parliament’s interest to bring forward an LCM before the last amending stage in this House to allow the House and the Government to reflect on the LCM, and if it wanted to it could choose to pass the legislative consent Motion tomorrow.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Would the Minister like to speculate on why it is not doing that? Why is it deliberately delaying it? My speculation would be that it is playing a cat and mouse game with us, and that it wants to see us move ahead without having to reveal its hand fully. Maybe a better analogy would be a game of poker. This is not something that should be the subject of a gamble. It is a very serious matter. Would he not join me in encouraging the Scottish Parliament to consider the legislative consent Motion at a very early opportunity?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I will certainly not be drawn into speculation. I have already said that it must be in the Scottish Parliament’s interest to pass the legislative consent Motion in time for the Government and this House to consider possible amendments in response to anything it comes forward with, and, as I said, it could pass the Motion any day. However, beyond that there is nothing more useful that I can add.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the point of legislative consent, could my noble friend help me by explaining why we are proceeding with a Bill in the absence of a legislative consent Motion? If the Scottish Parliament decided not to pass it, we would all have been wasting our time.
Lord Sassoon
We have a Bill; it is important that we press on, and the legislative consent Motion could come at any time. This is idle speculation. It is important that the Motion gets passed, and we look forward to it, but it is in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. There is really nothing more I can usefully say. I certainly do not believe for one minute that we are wasting our time considering the important provisions in this Bill.
Let me move on to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, about the cost of all of this. The major cost will be to the systems that would support the tax changes and the possible new tax rate in Scotland. It is all set out in the impact assessment that is published alongside the Bill. However, for the Scottish rate of income tax, HMRC’s initial estimate is of £40 million to £45 million over a period of years up to the introduction in 2016-17. Clearly the final cost will be dependent on a number of decisions to be made at the implementation stage; and HMRC, HM Treasury, the Scotland Office, with the Scottish Government, will continue to work to determine the optimal implementation approach. The costs may vary in some way as those decisions are taken, but the indicative estimate at the moment is £40 million to £45 million.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I thank the noble Lord for giving us that figure. Does that figure include the 31,000 civil servants in reserve departments who operate in Scotland, and the impact of the HMRC element of those 31,000? Will they continue to be in Scotland? Could he also perhaps give an indication of where that cost will be levied? Will Scottish taxpayers or UK-wide taxpayers take up the cost of disaggregation?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, on the first point, this will be the cost in isolation of the changes necessary to enable the introduction of the Scottish income tax provision. Of course, for fully devolved taxes, the cost will depend on decisions taken by Scottish Parliaments on the design of those taxes, and of course who should administer them. It is therefore a cost estimate that relates essentially to income tax. It assumes that nothing changes in the deployment of other people. It is the necessary cost related to the introduction of the new Scottish income tax regime. As the noble Baroness will know, it is a principle of devolution that costs that are to the benefit of the devolved Administration fall on the devolved Administration, so that is where these costs will fall.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, asked important questions relating to the Scottish Government’s readiness for implementation, the high-level implementation group and the joint Exchequer committee. I very much agree with him that these are important issues about the capacity of all sides, particularly the Scottish Government, to carry out what is necessary. I have already addressed the mechanics of the processes. We have the high-level implementation group, as the noble Lord has set out, and below that the technical groups established by HMRC to work out the detail.
The Scottish Government have focused on pressing for further powers in the Bill. Of course, while one respects their different views on other matters that they might want in the Bill, we would welcome greater attention on implementation from them. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making. Close attention has been shown to issues, such as the block grant adjustment mechanism. There is work to do and we should like to see the Scottish Government set out how they will use the powers provided to them in the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday called for clarification in particular of the stamp duty land tax, and I very much agree with him on that point.
The high-level implementation group was established by the UK Government. It is chaired jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. It has met four times since July 2010 and the role of the group is to oversee the implementation of the financial provisions of the Bill. As I have just said, the technical groups established by HMRC report to the high-level implementation group, and they provide detailed consideration and advice to inform implementation.
On the progress that has been made, the high-level implementation group is a UK Government group. It is entirely within the capacity and the direction of Ministers in London to press on with the work of that group. It is clear that the Scottish Government want their powers increased. To do that, clearly we would welcome more progress to begin setting out how the powers will be used. From that, many more questions will flow about implementation. That is where things stand at the moment.
The Duke of Montrose
On a slightly peripheral question, I am getting very worried that we are setting a precedent here. This may not be quite the moment to raise it with this Minister at the Dispatch Box but I still think that it is extremely relevant. The first indication of a legislative consent Motion was taken when the Scotland Bill was going through this House. It was dubbed the Sewel Motion thereafter. That was to allow Westminster to legislate on devolved matters.
We were told that a legislative consent Motion would be required not when the Bill started here or in the other House but when it reached the “second House”. We could not progress further until the legislative consent Motion was in place. Now we are dealing with a convention that was established outwith Parliament whereby Westminster is asking for a legislative consent Motion for a reserved matter, which this is. Are we establishing a precedent that Westminster goes ahead and produces legislation without legislative consent Motions—admittedly it is quite within its powers to do so because this is the sovereign Parliament—because it appears that the legislative consent Motions are getting slightly out of sync with each other. There is a danger that this is a precedent.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we need the legislative consent Motion. I am not sure I can help my noble friend much further on this. As I have said, it is in the interests of the Scottish Government to get on with the legislative consent Motion if they want consideration of any possible amendments to be taken in this House. I am repeating myself, but that really is as far as it goes. I do not think that these are questions of precedence so much as of practicality. As I said just now, there are a number of matters on which the Scottish Government would wish the provisions of the Bill to go further, so it is in their interests to bring forward the Motion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am grateful to my noble friend. So that we are clear about this, am I not right in saying that we do not need a legislative consent Motion? It may be that the courteous convention is that we take account of legislative consent, but that is a courtesy. This House is sovereign, and that is one of the reasons I asked my noble friend whether we were wasting our time. I was hoping that he would say that we are committed to this policy and that whether the Scottish Parliament passes the legislative consent Motion is not relevant. It would still become law and that is where we are or, alternatively, as part of our respect agenda we would not proceed without a legislative consent Motion. We seem to be in a rather fuzzy position where we are not really saying what our position is in respect of legislative consent, but when my noble friend said that we need a legislative consent Motion, that is clearly not correct.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for picking me up on that because the technical position is just as he states. However, in substance I stand by the remarks I made because just as we respect the conventions here, I would expect the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to respect them as well, and we look forward to receiving the legislative consent Motion in due course and ahead of Third Reading. However, my noble friend has set out the constitutional position perfectly correctly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps I may add to that one other point that we will come to at a later stage in the Bill. There are clauses that deal with the issue of the referendum. The Scottish Parliament has set a date on its consultation period that falls after the likely date when Parliament will be prorogued, so it will not be possible to take account of the consultation process because of the timetable it has chosen.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I really cannot comment on the date for Prorogation. We will see it when it comes, so that is pure speculation. Perhaps I may get back to the clause, albeit that that is an important matter. I want to finish my response to the questions about implementation put by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Earlier I touched briefly on his questions about the joint Exchequer committee, but to complete the picture in the context of this discussion, as I said, the committee met on 27 September. It was a useful first meeting, which agreed the principles relating to the mechanism for the block grant adjustment, as I think the noble Lord knows. It is important to stress again that discussions continue, outside the meetings of the joint Exchequer committee, on a bilateral basis on a range of issues across the Bill including the block grant. I repeat again that, although there are certain aspects on which we would like more progress and more focus, we are making good progress and I remain confident that we will agree on the measures set out in the Bill.
In conclusion, I believe that the provisions in Clause 29 are necessary and sensible as part of further tax devolution. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As I explained about six hours ago, I have put down a series of amendments to put “devolved” in front of Government. That is in no way to denigrate the functions of the devolved Government, or to devalue them or say that they are in any way less important by putting that word in front. It is meant to indicate that we are talking about devolution and not independence. As I said previously, Alex Salmond and his Ministers and colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, all of them in the SNP group, are going around in this great big pretence that they are already independent and acting as if they are an independent Government. They are doing things that they think they have the right to do. As we will come to in other debates, the chief civil servant in Scotland has made some amazing and unbelievable outpourings. In some of the statements made by Ministers, they clearly do not comprehend what is meant by devolution.
Devolution means that they remain part of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament are sovereign. Ultimately, the UK institutions can make decisions affecting Scotland on a whole range of things, although by convention and out of courtesy we do not do that. The word is put in there just to remind people that we are talking about devolution; a very important concept that, as noble friends know, I have fought for since I was a young man—and that was not yesterday. I spent a long time helping to persuade the Labour Party—along with John Mackintosh, Donald Dewar and a lot of noble Lords here—to come round in favour of devolution. One or two of my colleagues were not so enthusiastic about it, but we managed to persuade the party to do it. Devolution is very important. We should be proud of it and say how important it is, and how Scotland, by having a devolved Administration, can get the benefits of both worlds. There is the benefit of being part of a strong, powerful United Kingdom—one of the most important powers in the world, with a permanent seat on the Security Council, and membership of the European Union and NATO—but also that of having a Scottish Government, with power over their own affairs in a whole range of important matters such as education, social work, law and order, health and all these areas. This is not to minimise those in any way, but to make sure that that is clearly understood.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, makes a very important point. We have spent a lot of time in the debate today talking about the problems that surround devolution, but devolution in itself has been a very considerable achievement. It may not have gone as far as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen suggested, to kill nationalism stone dead, but it has put in place a system of government that has rectified some of the inequities that have existed for something like 300 years. Because of the nature of the debate that we have had as part of this legislation, we are missing out on making the case that devolution was a very considerable achievement. I do not think that anyone—and I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—would try to put the genie back in the bottle and go back to the previous status quo. Although what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is talking about is in essence a gesture, it is an opportunity for us to celebrate the fact that a transfer of powers was made very peacefully to the Scottish Parliament after the election of the Labour Government in 1997.
Many people misunderstand devolution, which has existed in Scotland for 300 years because of the nature of the Act of Union. The Scotland Act merely transferred that legislation, which often took place in this House in the middle of the night, and put it into a proper parliamentary context. By the time I became Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scotland Office was one department. When the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was Secretary of State for Scotland, he oversaw an empire of something like 13 different government departments. The model that we have now is the right one, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his argument for celebrating the cause of devolution rather than trying to hide it.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, I rise as somebody else who supported devolution. There have been one or two occasions during this evening when I have had my doubts, I must say—but in the main I have supported it, because in my view it is about democracy. That is what distinguishes it from independence, which almost certainly under the SNP would be democratic but does not have to be. It is not a prerequisite of an independent Scotland that it has to be a democratic state, but the fact is that devolution is about democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may sit there and pull faces, but he is one of the reasons why many of us argued strongly for the democratic process of devolution. What we had developed in Scotland was a Secretary of State for Scotland of a Conservative Government who, of course, increasingly had fewer and fewer Members in support in Scotland. Legislation which affected the whole of the people of Scotland was being put through this place with no democratic validity whatever.
There was an alternative, which was to abolish the Scotland Office and do away with separate Scottish legislation altogether. That was not seriously a political option in Scotland. The reason why we argued so strongly for devolution was because we felt that the only way you could get democratic legitimacy in Scotland was to give democratic powers to a Scottish Parliament to make legislation in Scotland for—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The hour is late and I am not going to make a speech, but I will just rise to the fly to say one thing. I opposed devolution because I thought that it would lead ultimately to the growth of the demands for independence and would benefit the nationalists, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. However, if I had realised how much damage devolution would do to the Labour Party in Scotland, I might have been tempted to go along with it.
Lord Maxton
It was partially self-inflicted, as my noble friend beside me says. However, that damage is also a short-term phenomenon and we will recover.
Certainly, we will recover once we have had the referendum on independence. I do not understand why Mr Alex Salmond does not want that referendum immediately, because this is his best chance of winning it. The longer he leaves it, in my view, the less chance he has of winning it. The arguments will no longer be about the way in which, or whether, we have the right to hold the referendum. It will be about the issues of what being an independent country, outside the United Kingdom, actually means: whether it will be part of Europe; whether it will have to apply to be part of Europe; and whether the rest of the United Kingdom will be part of Europe. Mr Alex Salmond seems to think that the rest of the United Kingdom would not necessarily be part of Europe, but it must be in his best interests to hope that it will be part of it. Can your Lordships imagine a Tory-dominated England, led by people such as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who would probably say: “Now we can get out of Europe—we don't have to be in it any longer. We can get out altogether and leave the European Union.”?
I always supported devolution on the basis of democracy. It was the right thing to do and it still is. I wish, however, that we could settle the issue of independence once and for all. If we get it out of the way, we could then deal with whether we apply, change or alter devolution. I am not necessarily convinced that we have to give enormous extra powers to the Scottish Parliament. In fact, there are some parts of the devolution settlement where we ought to be taking powers back from Scotland. For instance, broadcasting is one area over which they demand power, but powers like that should certainly be with this Parliament because they are now international rather than national. We should not therefore necessarily always be looking at giving powers to Scotland, and never taking them back.
We also have to look at what to my mind my late and very good friend Donald Dewar meant when he said that devolution is a process and not an end. The process was about extending democracy from the Scottish Parliament down to local government and local areas, so that you were giving powers to the people in the areas and the communities in which they lived. That to me is what Donald Dewar meant when he said that, not that it was the first step towards an independent Scotland.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
On that point, was it not the case that the Scottish Parliament in fact did quite the opposite of that, and drew powers away from local government and brought them to the Scottish Parliament? In fact, they are the people who have not continued devolution. While this House has tried to keep the concept of devolution going, the Scottish Parliament has done exactly the opposite.
Lord Maxton
That is very much so and it was quite interesting, as I listened to the debate earlier on taxation, that the Scottish Government, led by Alex Salmond over the past—what is it now?—three or four years, have not allowed local authorities to increase their council tax. They have put a cap on it, so they have in fact restrained taxation at a local level. My noble friend is quite right. They have actually reduced the democratic rights and responsibilities of local government, whereas what ought to have been the next step was to say, “We have devolved power to a Scottish Parliament for democratic reasons. We now need to devolve further down, to give more democracy to our local communities and our people to take the decisions at their level that need to be taken at that level”. That to me is what devolution is about. It is not about independence; it is not actually about nationalism or nationality at all. In fact, nationalism has been the bugbear of devolution, not the natural progression of it. Therefore I support my noble friend's amendment, which would put “devolved” into this Bill.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate for the simple reason that I do not support the amendment and I feel that I am destroying my relationship with my noble friend Lord Forsyth bit by bit in a salami-slice fashion.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Sorry, I meant my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Maybe I should start again.
The reason I do not support the amendment is not that it gives us an opportunity, as my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke has indicated, to celebrate devolution—I intend to do a bit of that myself—nor that it created the opportunity for what I thought was an excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Maxton on the reasons for devolution and why we should support it in principle. But over the course of this Parliament, I have been surprised by the ability of people to make the most detailed and engaging speeches about the concept that has become known as localism while at the same time resisting devolution. I do not really understand how people can hold those two concepts together in their head, as localism is just a form of devolution. As my noble friend Lord Maxton has suggested, we ought to start looking at the powers that we as politicians in government of any description exercise over people. We should look at the appropriate level to exercise them that is relevant to people. Given the experience that the political classes have had in the United Kingdom over the past few years of the deterioration of their relationship with the people they govern and legislate for, getting their relationship with the people of the country back would be very helpful.
I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I do not have anything like the history that some of my noble friends and other Members of this House have, but I have been committed to it for the whole of the shorter political life that I have had, and I was committed to it in my membership of the Labour Party before I had a public life in politics. At some stage in this debate we need to move away from arguments about what other people are doing or personalities—I include the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in this; he ought not to be the manifestation of a particular type of politics that we define ourselves against, any more than we should be obsessed by what other people are doing—to a collective narrative for devolution and for the union that describes the sort of United Kingdom that we want for the young people of today in Scotland and their future. That will be, as the people of Scotland demand, a Scotland in which there is significant devolved power, exercised by a Parliament that they elect independently of the United Kingdom Parliament.
We have to recognise that whether we have conditioned people into that expectation because of their dissatisfaction with the previous settlement and the sense of disfranchisement that there was between the people who governed them and the exercise of their votes, whether we have conditioned them into it by their expectations of devolution, or whether they have just been conditioned into it by their espousal in significant numbers of the concept of nationalism, it does not really matter what the motivation is—that is where the people of Scotland are. The sooner we get a collective narrative that describes the sort of Scotland that we want our children or our children’s children to live in, and what powers the people who govern them will have, how they will be able to use them and how they will be accountable, the more chance that we have of preserving the union. I passionately believe that the best way of describing that is in the context of the union.
I come to the issue of the use of the word “devolved”. The people of Scotland do not actually need that word attached to anything. They understand that their Parliament is a devolved Parliament and the Scottish Government are a devolved Government. Whether or not the people who happen to have charge of that Government or that executive power for a particular period have other ambitions and behave in a particular way, as they do, that is designed to give some alternative impression, the people of Scotland are not fooled. The people of Scotland want an Executive who address the issues that Scotland faces, which are manifest to anyone who lives there. We have problems in relation to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, health, the abuse of alcohol, sectarianism and a lot of issues that have their roots in decisions made by previous generations, such as the movement of people, the death of economic drivers, changes in economic circumstances and the movement of jobs from these islands. There is a whole series of things, over many of which we have not had any real control.
Of course, the people of Scotland do not want a First Minister who is more interested in consorting with people who give the impression that he is somehow much more important than he is. They do not want that and they see through it. We do not need to spend much time describing all that. However, they definitely want politicians who can address the issues and challenges of their everyday lives. They want people to explain to them why these issues are best addressed in the context of the United Kingdom, wider Europe and the world. They understand that.
Traditionally, Scots knew and understood their position in the world. That is why, while there are approximately 5 million people in Scotland who claim to be Scots, there are in excess of 40 million people around the world who claim Scots heritage in one way or another. We are a nation of people who have an understanding and concept of our place in the world. I honestly do not think that we need to spend any more time in this Committee or on the Bill debating these issues. We need to start describing the future of Scotland in the context of devolution and celebrate what we have already achieved by being a template for genuine localism in the United Kingdom.
It has not been perfect. We have a very young Parliament in which people are growing up. Members of the Scottish Parliament who were not politicians at all when we devolved powers to it are becoming significant politicians in the United Kingdom. I simply do not support my noble friend’s interesting amendment, which has led to a short but interesting debate, because the last thing that the people of Scotland need is for their politicians to spend another few hundred thousand pounds on changing the name of their Government.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, can I perhaps be somewhat boring and brief at this time of night by focusing on the amendment? It would insert the word “Devolved” into Clause 30, Clause 37 and Schedule 4, where the reference would become to the devolved Scottish Government. Clause 15 changes the formal name to the Scottish Government from the Scottish Executive. It was felt that the Executive were increasingly widely known as the Scottish Government and that it made sense to amend the Act to reflect public perception and to avoid confusion. However, the fact that the Scotland Act refers to “Scottish Executive” prevents the use of “Scottish Government” in legislation, contracts and other legal matters. Therefore, Clause 15 is designed to prevent inconsistencies in what the Scottish Executive are called by the public and in the legal name.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wishes to insert “devolved” in front of “Scottish Government”. That is unnecessary and may even lead to further confusion. Altering the name of the Scottish Government to “the devolved Scottish Government” would in no way strengthen the position of devolution. Indeed, it is important to note that no such prefix attaches to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. It would look very odd and lopsided if it happened just in Scotland.
That said, this has been a useful debate on devolution. I will not go into all the highways and byways but some important points were made. Some of us who very much support what has happened over the past 12 years sometimes miss a trick because so often, ahead of the debates in 1997 and the referendum leading up to that, we talked about devolution in terms of the Scottish Parliament dealing with matters related to the domestic agenda of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom Parliament being responsible for macroeconomic policies, defence, foreign policy, social security and pensions. Although we will undoubtedly debate where the boundaries should be—the Bill seeks to address some of these issues—I nevertheless believe that the idea of a Scottish Parliament within a United Kingdom still commands the support of the vast majority of the people in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am convinced by the eloquence and brevity of both Front Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.