Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025

Baroness Smith of Cluny Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Cluny]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 February be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 March.

Motion agreed.

Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025

Baroness Smith of Cluny Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Cluny]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. It comes as the result of collaboration between the two Governments in Scotland and makes provision as a result of changes made to the existing disclosure regime in Scotland. The order before us, if passed, will be made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that this Government have taken through seven orders since we came to power in 2024. I will now go on to explain the purpose of the order.

This order is in consequence of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, which deals with the circumstances in which information about a person’s criminal history and other information held about them by the police and other law enforcement bodies can be disclosed. The disclosure Act seeks to modernise and improve proportionality in the disclosure system in Scotland. As a result, some changes have been made to the disclosure regime and this order is accordingly necessary to ensure the continued provision of conviction information, cautions, relevant police information and records of fingerprints that are held by UK law enforcement bodies to the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of the disclosure regime.

The order places equivalent duties on the chief officers of UK law enforcement bodies in relation to disclosure information, where relevant, to those which the disclosure Act places on the chief constable of Police Scotland. This ensures that the chief officer must provide information to the Scottish Ministers in the same way that the chief constable is required to do in Scotland. Without this order, there would be significant consequences for safeguarding across the UK, as the cross- border disclosure and information-sharing arrangements already in place under the Police Act—that is, the duties on and powers available to chief officers of UK police forces—will no longer operate. I beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, first, I am glad to be able to debate with the Minister. I had a conversation with her when she was first appointed, but this is my first opportunity to do that. I am obviously grateful to her for introducing this order.

The Minister has more expertise in this field than I have, but I had a look at the instrument—I can see why we need safeguarding, of course, and why there is a desire to tidy it up and ensure that there are comparable rules around the UK—and it would appear that some differences remain. In particular, the situation in Scotland is that where other, related issues are being addressed—in other words, non-criminal ones—the person who has their information disclosed has the right to make representations before it is disclosed to the applicant for the information. This instrument, as I understand it, says that where UK authorities are handing information related to other parts of the UK to Scottish authorities, they have to take that into account. Indeed, they have to apply that law, which is fine if that is what the law says, but I worry that police authorities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland will need to know that the law in that context is different. What assurances are there that that will be observed, and that information will not inadvertently be disclosed which the affected party has not had the right to test? That was highlighted in the statutory instruments committee’s comments on the order.

Although it is stated that the overall purpose of this SI is to bring more coherence, consistency and simplification to the system across the UK, it still leaves differences. The Scottish law basically says: “We have a standard, which doesn’t apply in England and Wales, but if you are feeding information into Scotland, you’re obliged to be aware of that standard”. My main question is: how are we to ensure that all the relevant people know about it, bearing in mind that we are talking about not just the police here but potentially about other related bodies that may have information?

Of course, at the other end of the scale in the changes that are made, all those who are employing people or taking them on as volunteers need to know what their rights are, what they can get and the circumstances in which they can get it. Given the change- over in volunteers, again, who is responsible for ensuring that? Presumably, it is Scottish officers in Scotland, but, obviously, it is other agencies elsewhere in the UK. I ask the Minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that the differences that still apply are understood by all the relative parties and do not lead to a situation where either information that should be disclosed is not or a person’s right to have it tested before it is disclosed does not apply? If that is the case, in effect, the law is being broken. What would the penalties be for any authority outside Scotland that broke the law? Is there any provision for a penalty in that case, or is it just unfortunate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble and learned Baroness the Advocate-General for Scotland to the Front Bench. Although she has been in post for a while, this is the first time that I have been in Grand Committee with her, and I wish her well in all that she does for His Majesty’s Government. I am grateful to her for her opening remarks on this order.

In terms of the original legislation as passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Disclosure (Scotland) Act is intended to simplify the process by which information on a person held by the police can be shared. It will go into effect on 1 April this year, replacing the existing three levels of disclosure with just two levels. It is worth noting the broad welcome that the legislation has received, as well as cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament; for instance, Volunteer Scotland welcomed the Act for both its potential to remove barriers for individuals with past convictions seeking employment and its ability to strengthen the PVG scheme. However, we must remain mindful of the complexities and nuances involved. These changes will undoubtedly have a significant impact on various professional sectors, particularly those that work with vulnerable groups. In addition, it will significantly affect how personal data, including criminal history, is shared.

The purpose of the order before the Grand Committee is, rightly, to ensure that the existing arrangements for cross-border information sharing between UK law enforcement bodies and Scottish Ministers continue. It will also help prevent any disruption to the flow of crucial data between UK law enforcement and Scottish Ministers.

Although we do not oppose this order, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I observe that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted this as an instrument of interest because it would create inconsistencies in the way in which information is shared between police forces and Scottish Ministers, as compared to the rest of the UK. Police forces outside Scotland would have a duty to allow the subject of a request to make representations on other relevant information when a request originated in Scotland, despite having no such duty for other requests in the rest of the UK. That introduces a critical question: why is it necessary to create this distinction? There is a concern that this difference in treatment could lead to inefficiencies for both law enforcement agencies and individuals. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments as to the position of the UK Government on this seeming inconsistency.

Further, can the Minister clarify how police forces across the UK will be supported in managing these new obligations on the ground, especially in ensuring that adequate resources are there to ensure that the transition to a new system does not lead to delays or hinder in some way the sharing of critical information? Finally, given the complex nature of this situation, can she assure us that the guidance due to be published will be easy to understand and clear to the public? I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who has done a lot of work in anticipation of this order, which has been in inception for some time. I am grateful for the points raised and the opportunity they allow for some reassurance to be given.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, commented that it is a question of how the differences will not come to be a problem in practice when, plainly, police forces and other public bodies are essentially required to treat requests differently, to a certain extent, depending on where in the United Kingdom the case emanates from. Many of the processes are the same; it is really on the question of review that there comes to be a bit of difference. It is also worth observing that there is a process whereby an applicant can ask for a review under the current regime and the one that will remain in England and Wales. The substance of the process—the fact that a police force is required to undertake a review—remains the same. The skills and the tests are the same. It is the substance that matters a great deal to the applicant.

It is the case that the weight of obligations will change a little bit. At present, an applicant may be asked for additional information, whereas this order places a duty on the public body to do so and to have regard to it. However, I reassure noble Lords that the substance of the matter and the questions to be asked remain the same. There is also one other difference, which is the opportunity to have an independent reviewer look at the process.

I understood the noble Lord to be asking what work has been undertaken to ensure that these differences are understood and therefore can be implemented beyond simply police forces because, as he observed, this will affect a wider group than just police forces. Scotland Office officials have worked to create the policy as well as draft this order alongside counterpart officials in the Scottish Government, the Ministry of Justice—my office—the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Welsh Government. Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been consulted and have provided valuable input until January this year. Statutory guidance has been developed and the same police forces and bodies have been involved in its drafting. The guidance aims to be as consistent as possible with the existing guidance issued to officers across the United Kingdom.

It is worth observing that Disclosure Scotland has existing relationships with all the public bodies that provide information at the moment, so it is not a question of the scope of public bodies with which it needs to interact changing. There are relationships there, and the functions are understood. Engagement has been led by Disclosure Scotland through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as well as with wider parties, to ensure that there is a clear understanding.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords that there has been good engagement. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, it is important that the guidance is clear, and efforts have been made not just to make it clear but to engage the affected parties so that it is clear to them as well as to the Government. One concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was that the wrong information may be disclosed. I hope that that will not be a consequence of this order, for the reasons I have given: the substantive exercise to be undertaken and the tests to be applied remain unchanged; it is simply a question of the opportunities for review and how those reviews are undertaken. As for a failure to apply the review processes properly, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I think that speaks to the policy purpose behind introducing the independent reviewer function, which allows not only another step of review to take place but indeed for that to be undertaken by someone independent.

On the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on additions to guidance and a concern around inefficiencies, I detect that that may speak to the question of resources. Again, I hope that because of the extensive engagement that has gone on over a period of time and the fact that the guidance is being drafted in consultation with those affected that will not be an issue and it will simply be the case that public bodies recognise, with the assistance of Disclosure Scotland, that this is a request coming in from Scotland and that there are slightly modified rules to be applied if, and only if, the applicant asks for a review, as of course many of these issues will be dealt with without that being required.

I close by saying that this order demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.

Motion agreed.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Smith of Cluny Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)]

The scale of the issue of violence against women and girls is such that this Government are treating it as a national emergency. We will publish a new strategy setting out how we will halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and we hope to publish this before the Summer Recess. Recently, we have taken important steps, including embedding domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms in five police force areas, under Raneem’s law, and funding a new national policing centre for violence against women and girls and public protection, to improve policing response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble and learned friend for her Answer. Does she agree that unmarked cars displaying flashing blue lights should be restricted to the absolutely necessary? I declare an interest because, in my former role as a judge, I have dealt with cases of men being stopped in cars that turned out to be fitted with blue lights. Can she explain what steps the Government will take to ensure that women are not fooled into stopping for a car which is not a genuine police car, particularly at night?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very pertinent and distressing question for women, as she says, particularly at night. There are two parts to this answer; the first is on what the Government are doing and the second is on “What should a woman do tonight?” Should individuals be concerned if they are approached by a lone officer or someone in a car that they find suspicious, either because it is displaying blue lights that may or may not be authentic or because it is an unmarked but genuine police car, it is entirely reasonable for that woman to seek reassurance that the person is acting legitimately, and I would expect any officer receiving such a challenge from a member of the public to understand why it is being made and to do what they can to provide reassurance. This remains an issue of huge concern, and the Government will be addressing it through the work of the Angiolini Inquiry. Part 1 of the inquiry reported in February 2024, and we are committed to implementing the 16 recommendations made. Part 2 of the Angiolini Inquiry will look at the role and effectiveness of police initiatives to make women and girls safer when interacting with the police, and I feel sure that this Question will be addressed in that part.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government are to succeed in their strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, they must not treat online violence in isolation. How are the Government seeking to tackle the rise in misogynistic influencers who are normalising VAWG among young men?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises another pertinent issue. As she is aware, we have created a new offence in the Data (Use and Access) Bill to criminalise the creation of a purported intimate image, otherwise known as deepfake images, of an adult without their consent or a reasonable belief in their consent. That partly addresses the issue she raises, but it is a bigger issue of education and how we talk to our young people, and that starts in schools. It is essential that online misogyny and online pornography is tackled when they are at a young age and that we have the right messaging. That is part of cross-departmental approach to the strategy that is being written at the moment, where we involve all departments because we need to tackle the issue from a young age on.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

The case of Kyle Clifford, who was a follower of Andrew Tate, has been mirrored by many other crimes that have involved the actual killing or abuse of women. Is it not time that we start to consider this in the same way that we consider terrorism? Had Kyle Clifford been a member of ISIS, that would have been a huge story. Andrew Tate’s influence is now across 80% of all young boys at school, and yet nothing seems to happen about saying that this needs to come up to the level of Prevent, although the same sorts of crimes are resulting.

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness’ comments reflect my comment, indeed my opening sentence, which is that this Government are treating this as a national emergency. On online safety, we are working with Ofcom to ensure that the Online Safety Act is implemented quickly, and Ofcom is already enforcing duties on publishers of pornography. Services within the scope of the Online Safety Act must take action to tackle illegal pornographic content, and the strategy we are working on will take into account all these issues and bring a holistic approach to them.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid welcomed the Labour Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. However, it also urged the Government to address the funding gap of £232 million that domestic abuse services are experiencing right now. As violence against women and girls offences constitute more than one in six of all offences reported in Britain, how will the Government halve domestic violence against women and girls if those charities are £232 million short before we even start?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

It is vital that we work with the third sector on the strategy and that the Government work with other public bodies and with the private sector. That is why we are engaging across the sector to ensure that the new cross-government approach and strategy is effective. On funding, we have spent £20 million on domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator interventions and £17.4 million on victims services, including national helplines and specialist services, which is an increase of £3 million from the last financial year. There is an additional £27 million to strengthen policing and wider criminal justice system responses and £2.47 million on prevention and early intervention to help stop these crimes happening in the first place. We will be working in the coming weeks to finalise our wider budget in support of the strategy.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, one of the principal examples of violence against women and girls in recent years was the grooming gangs scandal. While we are disappointed that the Government chose not to establish a full statutory inquiry into this issue, Ministers have now commissioned a rapid three-month audit led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. Can the noble and learned Baroness confirm when the audit’s findings will be published and when we can expect to see the Government’s formal response to it?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I regret to tell the noble Lord that I do not have the date when it will be published, but he can be assured that the utmost attention will be paid to it, in line with our attitude towards all these issues, which, as I described, are a national emergency. The bigger issue that the noble Lord raises is a crisis of confidence in policing; that will be central to the strategy that we write, because we know that the police response to violence against women and girls has not been good enough to date. Victims must feel confident in the police’s ability to handle their case. That is why we have already taken steps by embedding domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms and by also seeking to create dedicated domestic abuse teams within every police force, so that these things never happen again.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, the most recent Femicide Census notes that cases of older women who are killed and subject to extreme sexual violence are often seen as not newsworthy. The charity Hourglass, which works to reduce the abuse of older people in the UK, has experienced an increase in calls by 50% over the last two years. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that older women are not forgotten in the development of their strategy?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

It is vital that every woman and child in the UK is included, and that is why we are taking a cross-departmental and cross-sector approach, so that all information, including from the third sector, is captured and fed into the strategy. The Home Secretary has already announced a package of reforms to improve confidence in the policing process, which will go to the heart of some of the issues that are being raised. Much stronger training on violence against women and girls is being offered to police officers, and options are being developed to interact with other bodies that have specialist knowledge. We will integrate that into the strategy.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, 95% of boys watch pornography before they are 18. This can lead to greater acceptance of sexual harassment and violence against girls and women. By July this year, sites offering pornographic content must have in place highly effective age-enforcement action. Is the Minister confident that this deadline will be successfully met, and that children, girls and women will be protected?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

The Government are resolute in their commitment to keeping children safe online. I have already mentioned some of the actions of Ofcom. Services in scope of the Online Safety Act must take action to tackle illegal pornographic content, and Ofcom will be able to take robust enforcement action against companies that fail to comply.

Council of Nations and Regions

Baroness Smith of Cluny Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the intended functions and constitutional role of the Council of Nations and Regions.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)]

My Lords, the council is designed to facilitate genuine partnership working between the UK Government, the devolved Governments, the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities. It brings together Governments and authorities with devolved responsibilities to determine actions for tackling some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges the country faces. The functions of the council are set out in its published terms of reference.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the devolution White Paper said that the Council of the Nations and Regions

“will provide unparalleled opportunities for Mayors … to engage government at the highest levels on a systematic basis”.

There were 11 mayors at its first meeting six months ago, alongside the First Ministers from the devolved Administrations. How many mayors will attend when all the English combined authorities are set up? How often is it intended to meet, given that it was suggested it should meet for a second occasion in the early months of this year? How does it relate to other intergovernmental forums, such as the British-Irish Council? How does it relate to Gordon Brown’s 2022 proposal for a council of the nations and regions that would replace the House of Lords?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

My Lords, settle in. I will attempt to deal with some of those matters; no doubt they can be raised by other Members. The Council of the Nations and Regions is a completely new way of addressing intergovernmental relations. It is a unique forum for the mayors and the First Ministers to meet the senior leadership in the UK Government. Plainly, the number of mayors is a moving feast. The Government are encouraging as many English authorities to achieve mayoral status as possible, but this is a work in progress, although it is happening at pace. As the council develops, the Government will keep its structures and numbers under review—in consultation, of course, with the devolved Governments.

On the British-Irish Council, I think that feeds into a bigger question about intergovernmental structures generally. The Council of the Nations and Regions is a unique forum, and it is different from any others. Each forum serves a specific purpose, as does the British-Irish Council. Many of them come from historic agreements and situations. The Council of the Nations and Regions is in no way intended to replace any existing structures, but simply to supplement them.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Baroness to her place. I of course welcome all and any bodies that bring the different parts of the United Kingdom together for a purpose, but how do we avoid duplication and instead have complementarity in the different bodies, whether that is the east-west council or the Council of the Nations and Regions?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. There is, of course, no purpose in simply duplicating structures. That is why I sought in my last answer to emphasise the unique nature of this particular body. The Prime Minister has been clear that it will have genuine purpose and that it is not simply to be a talking shop. Other structures, however, address different problems and sensitivities. This particular structure will, for example, sit alongside the top-tier meetings that will continue to take place between the First Ministers and the Prime Minister, which will happen at the same time as these meetings. That goes towards efficiency of the use of structures rather than duplication, because the relevant people will be travelling in any event.

To the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about when the next meeting will take place, it will take place in the spring. The Council of the Nations and Regions will meet twice a year alongside the other structures that I mentioned.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I too welcome my noble and learned friend to her place. The Government recently announced a “third era” for the Scotland Office. The first was to establish devolution. The second, sadly, was mired in conflict and division. Does she agree that the third era should be about co-operation and delivery, and that this should be the focus for all who want to see Scotland prosper and succeed?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said last Friday:

“The vast majority of Scots want their two governments to work together to increase living standards and improve public services”.


From being based in Scotland, as this House is aware that I am, I can see this at first hand. I am told at official level, at the political level and from what I read in the newspapers that there is a consensus that inter- governmental relations have been vastly improved since the election of this Labour Government.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions brings another apparatus into the rather crowded field of devolved government. Can the Minister outline the process for resolving disagreements between devolved Administrations, the council and the UK Government, if, indeed, one exists?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It goes to the heart of any intergovernmental structure: the structures only work if the participants can find agreement and work co-operatively. The first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions was nothing but a success. There was agreement on how it should meet, a communiqué was produced following the meeting and it will meet again six months after its first meeting. It is also clear from the wider landscape of the relationships between the two Governments that it is adding to the picture of good working relationships.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I cannot speak for Scotland like the Minister can, but in Wales there certainly is a lack of clarity regarding the objectives of this body among not only some politicians but the media. After a 12-month first run of this body, will the Government publish a White Paper outlining what it has achieved and what it hopes to achieve, and invite discussion in the Senedd in Cardiff and in other devolved Parliaments to ensure that there is a full understanding and co-ordination of the aspiration for this body?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The purpose of the council is to deal with cross-cutting issues and strategic questions. For example, growth was on the agenda at the first meeting and some substantial actions came out of that—tangible outcomes that can be pointed to. The next issue, which will be tackled in the spring, will be of a similar nature. It is not in the nature of such discussions that a White Paper would assist the overall landscape. It is about relationships, tackling the big issues and delivering for the people.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the inter- governmental relations review, which reported in January 2022, so just over three years ago, introduced a structure of quarterly and annual reports on the state of inter- governmental relations. As the council is additional to the existing structures, and as those reports initially came from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—and have now transferred back to the Cabinet Office—can the Minister update us on when the next report will come out and whether the reporting system is still in place?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for his question. I do not have that information to hand, but I will be very happy to write with it in due course.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions has real potential to improve economic activity in regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber, and throughout other regions in the UK. However, as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, I know how important it is to have a strong Civil Service presence in the regions to deliver on the functions of the council. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister assure me that getting that strong regional presence for the Civil Service will be a priority for the Government? I hope that was what the Secretary of State, Pat McFadden, was hinting at in his weekend interviews.

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

Yes, I agree whole- heartedly with my noble friend that having the Civil Service out of London and in the regions is vital. I work from a UK government building in Edinburgh that has a large contingent from HMRC, as well as colleagues from the Cabinet Office, the Scotland Office and my own office. It is very easy to see the benefits of having departments in the regions. As I am sure noble Lords know, the Foreign Office also has a large presence outside Glasgow. It is vital to joined-up government that we have a Civil Service that serves the regions in England, as well as the nations in Scotland, and this Government are committed to that.

Rule of Law

Baroness Smith of Cluny Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Cluny]

That this House takes note of the importance of the rule of law.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate as the Advocate-General for Scotland. As some may know, this is also my maiden speech, so I hope the House will indulge me in saying a few words of a more personal nature before moving on to the substance of the debate.

I start with a thank you for the welcome I have received from all sides of the House and from Black Rod, her office, the catering staff and many other colleagues who work so hard to make this place run smoothly. The doorkeepers get special mention. I am reliably informed that I am going to get lost in the corridors here for years to come, so their thank you is prospective as well as retrospective—a wee joke there for the lawyers.

I am here primarily as a law officer, and it is with great pride that I am. The role of Advocate-General is vital to the UK Government, delivering for Scotland and the devolution settlement in which I passionately believe. I will make sure that Scotland’s voice is heard and properly taken account of in both policy formation and legislation. It is by doing that that we can thrive as individual nations as well as strengthening the union. It has also been my honour to join this House, and I hope to make a meaningful contribution here as well.

The role of Advocate-General and the associated responsibilities in this House have traditionally attracted weekly attendance in London from my predecessors. Living in Scotland with just my daughter and me at home, I am pleased and proud that this Labour Government immediately and enthusiastically supported my request to undertake the role primarily from Edinburgh. In doing so, we have signalled clearly that this is a family-friendly and modern Government, leading by example. There are other advantages. I have long thought that the Advocate-General seemed a remote figure on the Scottish legal landscape and it is my view that if you are representing Scotland’s interests, it is vital to be rooted in that nation and aware of what those living there want and need.

I have gleaned that the House is prepared to indulge new Members in paying tribute in their maiden speech to those in their personal life who have supported them, so I wish to mention two titanic women. The first is my mother, who persuaded me that there was more than one way to be a parliamentarian, quietly arguing for the effectiveness of this House, despite my initial mistaken view that it was only the other place that mattered. Her insatiable intellectual curiosity continues to be an inspiration to me. The second is my daughter, the bold Ella. Being the child of a parliamentarian is not always easy—I know this—but Ella’s experience is particularly acute. When your only flatmate leaves for a trip to London and you are 10 years old, it leaves a big space. She is finding it very hard but, despite this, I have lost count of the number of times she has told me she is proud of me. I want to pay testimony to her sacrifice and that of the children and families of all parliamentarians who lose out to allow us to serve. I hope that this lesson in the value of public service stays with her for life, as it did for me.

Many in this House have very kindly welcomed me in the context of knowing my parents. If the Times diary column is to be believed, I and my mother are the first mother and daughter Peers. If nothing else, we are destined to live on in pub quizes for ever. I am very proud of both my parents and it is a privilege to bask in their reflected glory, but only for a while. I hope that this House will find space here for me to be me, not just my parents’ daughter. I believe I am here because of a hard-earned legal career, which included taking Silk, sitting as a judge in various fora and earning the respect of my profession over many years. I will contribute to this House as a product of that, with my own thoughts and beliefs guiding me. So, if I may gently encourage Members to call me Catherine, not Elizabeth—nor indeed Sarah—I can seek to forge my own way here and in time, I hope, earn your Lordships’ respect as an individual.

I also wish to acknowledge my second supporter, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The law is so much more than the black letter of it. It is a tool with which to change and improve lives, and indeed whole nations, as we will discuss today. Using the law as a campaigning tool for the greater good is something the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is a past master at.

I turn to the rule of law. The rule of law is sacrosanct; it is the bedrock on which democracy sits. As the Attorney-General explained in this Chamber, the rule of law will serve as this Government’s lodestar. I will begin by mentioning the principal aspects of this Government’s position, looking at international law, human rights and the constitutional role of Parliament and the courts, before concluding by highlighting the importance of the rule of law in the context of devolution in Scotland.

This Government are clear that the rule of law encompasses international law. This Government will, without question, honour our obligations under international law and promote the rule of law internationally. The Prime Minister has already taken action through the publication of the new Ministerial Code, which reinserts express reference to the duty of Ministers to comply with international law and treaty obligations. Compliance with international law is not only the right thing to do morally; it also upholds our international reputation. That in turn enhances our ability to work with partners to address global challenges, whether they are climate change, artificial intelligence, migration or economic growth. We have made plain our commitment to our cornerstone international institutions, which the UK will once again champion.

These institutions are fundamental to ensuring justice for people with no other recourse. I have seen first hand the immense challenges to the rule of law in other countries through the work I have done in the NGO and charity sectors. I have been visiting Ukraine since 2004, when I first met Martin Harris, our ambassador there, working on projects promoting the rule of law. Both the Attorney-General and I have been to Ukraine in the last year, speaking to lawyers about how the UK can seek to support them, including through our commitment to the rule of law.

This Government are equally clear that the protection of human rights is an essential element of the rule of law. We are fully committed to complying with our obligations under international human rights law. This includes our unequivocal commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights—to which the UK was the first signatory, a fact we should be proud of—and to the treaties we have ratified in the United Nations. Domestically, the Human Rights Act is an important part of our constitution and fundamental to the rights protection of everyone in the UK. It is thanks to our robust domestic human rights framework that, out of 46 Council of Europe member states, the UK has the lowest per capita rate of applications to the European Court of Human Rights.

I will now acknowledge the importance of respecting the constitutional balance between Parliament, the Executive and the courts. Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental feature of our constitution. Parliament must have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government, and a proper balance between primary and secondary legislation is vital. In a modern, regulated society, secondary legislation is crucial to efficient government, and it absolutely has its place. However, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the Covid pandemic resulted in concentrating immense power in the hands of the Executive. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out, this represented an acceleration and intensification of an existing trend.

This raises real questions about how we are governed. As a Government, we will seize the opportunity to reset our approach, respecting the constitutional role of Parliament. We, the law officers, will ensure that the Government’s legislation is accessible, clear and predictable and reflects the correct balance between primary and secondary legislation. To this end, the Attorney-General has already issued new guidance on the appropriate use of secondary legislation in government Bills.

In the courts, our judges are rightly respected around the world for their expertise, impartiality and independence. Judicial independence is a prerequisite of the rule of law. This Government and our Lord Chancellor will robustly and swiftly defend any attacks on this from any quarter.

I will conclude with some comments on the rule of law in the context of Scottish devolution. I believe that the rule of law underpins the success of the settlement through the promotion of effective collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments, and the mechanisms for clarification by the courts where necessary. As a Parliament, I believe we should be incredibly proud of an excellent piece of drafting in the Scotland Act, which has stood the test of its first 25 years. Deliberation in this Chamber was fundamental to that.

Since the Scotland Act’s debate and passing in 1998, we have seen political change that many would not have predicted then: a majority Government in Scotland—indeed, a nationalist majority Government; a referendum on independence; 17 years of different political parties being in power in the two Parliaments; and not to mention the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. During this time, the Scotland Act has governed the relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments, such that these seismic constitutional events have been well managed and, in the main, handled with respect. Indeed, it is important to acknowledge the collaboration that regularly occurs between UK and Scottish Governments, underpinned by a common respect for the rule of law.

My department works constructively and effectively with counterparts in the Scottish Government on numerous issues on a daily basis, achieving consensus under the radar and away from the headlines. By way of example, the new devolved pension age disability payment in Scotland will sit properly in the mixed reserved and devolved benefits regime because of technical changes delivered through a Scotland Act order made by the UK Government in October. Scotland’s two Governments working together to put in place a coherent legislative framework, in accordance with the rule of law, for the benefit of the people—this is what a resetting of the relationship looks like in practice.

I particularly look forward to working together effectively with the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland. Indeed, in the vein of collaboration, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on their appointments as shadow Advocate-General for Scotland and shadow Attorney-General? I look forward to working constructively with them as well.

The rule of law is also fundamental to resolving questions regarding the construction of the devolution settlement. I have heard it suggested that the litigation we have seen in this area is indicative of a failure in the devolution architecture; indeed, some describe it as broken. I strongly rebut that suggestion. Litigation is, in my view, further evidence of the devolution settlement working well. The drafters of the Scotland Act had the foresight to include powers for law officers of the UK and Scottish Governments to refer questions regarding the competence of the devolved institutions for judicial determination. As acknowledged by the Supreme Court, the actual practice of the UK and Scottish law officers has borne out that the reference procedures have been exercised in the public interest. Far from being symptomatic of a system that is broken, judgments of the court have helpfully clarified the Act; and, looking at it another way, one might think it odd if those mechanisms had never been used in 25 years. For example, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Sewel convention is a political convention, not a justiciable legal rule. This Government’s commitment to strengthening the Sewel convention will be taken forward consistent with that position.

In respect of Acts of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament has granted consent in respect of over 200 Acts. The number of occasions when this Parliament has legislated without consent that has been sought is fewer than a dozen, and the majority of those occasions concerned the withdrawal from the EU, a fraught and complex legislative event that might well be thought to be very far out of the ordinary. In terms of Acts of the Scottish Parliament, 368 have been enacted since devolution. The UK Government law officers have referred to the Supreme Court the question of whether a Scottish Parliament Bill is within competence only three times.

This picture I have set out demonstrates that the Act is operating as it ought to in a mature democracy—working well day to day but containing provision for the limits of the settlement to be tested, and those provisions being used appropriately from time to time.

Lord Bingham described the rule of law as one of the greatest unifying factors—perhaps the greatest—and as an ideal worth striving for, in the interests of good government and peace, at home and in the world at large. This most elegant formulation cogently demonstrates why the rule of law will serve as this Government’s lodestar, there for all to see.

I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ insightful contributions and I beg to move.