Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014

Earl of Mar and Kellie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I shall provide a brief summary of what this draft order, which was laid before the House on 17 March 2014, seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 or Schedule 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. This order will amend Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which I shall refer to as the 1998 Act, to update the definition of “food” in that Act. It will also amend Section J4 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act to reflect the agreement reached regarding the regulation of animal feeding stuffs.

Upon devolution, the regulation of food safety and standards was devolved under the 1998 Act. As at 1 July 1999, the 1998 Act understood “food” to be as was defined by the Food Safety Act 1990. Post devolution, that definition was changed on a GB-wide basis by the Food Safety Act 1990 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 to align it with the new European Union definition of “food”. The definition at devolution and the definition post devolution are largely similar, but they are not identical. I would like to be clear that this is a technical, legal difference and there is not necessarily a specific food which would have fallen under one definition and not the other. Importantly, this 2004 change resulted in a mismatch between the legal definition of “food” in the 1998 Act and “food” as it was defined in EU law. The legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers was, therefore, limited by an out-of-date definition of “food”. This was never the intention of the 1998 Act.

Similarly, in relation to non-medicinal animal feed and additives, the regulation of animal feed safety and standards was also devolved under the 1998 Act, except for the regulation of veterinary medicines, which was reserved. Section J4 in the 1998 Act reserves the subject matter of the Medicines Act 1968, which I shall refer to as the 1968 Act. Section 130(1) of the 1968 Act, as it stood as at 1 July 1999, defined “medicinal product” as including substances fed to animals and, therefore, veterinary medicinal products. However, it was subsequently agreed between the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Food Standards Agency that certain zootechnical additives, which do not have a medicinal effect on the animals that consume them, should be regulated within the framework of animal feed law rather than veterinary medicines legislation. It was agreed that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate would regulate for the UK all matters falling within the scope agreed and set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2005. Although those regulations have since been revoked, being replaced or amended by new veterinary medicines regulations almost every year, the definitions of “veterinary medicinal product” and “specified feed additives” have been unchanged since 2005. In effect, certain animal feed-stuffs and additives ceased to be veterinary medicinal products yet continued to fall within the scope of the reservation stated at Section J4 in the 1998 Act. Thus, the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers was limited.

To address these problems, in 2005 and 2006 orders were made under Section 63 of the 1998 Act to update the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers by transferring certain necessary functions to them. These orders allowed Scottish Ministers to continue to regulate for food safety and standards by giving full effect to EU law, and also allowed them to legislate for, and control, all non-medicinal animal feed in Scotland. However, those orders did not, and could not, address the issue of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence in these areas. This Section 30 order will bring the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence better into line with the executive competence of Scottish Ministers, both by updating the definition of “food” in the 1998 Act—thus bringing it into line with European Union legislation—and by amending Section J4 of Schedule 5, with respect to animal feeding stuffs. We believe that this order is a sensible way of addressing the anomalies I have described.

This order demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work in a very practical way. I hope the Committee will agree that this order is a reasonable use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998. The order was debated in the House of Commons on 29 April this year and received the approval of that House on 30 April. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the content of the order. I welcome any move that is devolutionary in character. I certainly believe that Scottish-branded food and the animal feed-stuff that goes toward producing it are a central part of the Scottish economy and the tourist economy. I believe that Scottish farmers and growers are some of the most efficient in the world and that the Scottish Parliament therefore should certainly be in direct control of this type of regulation.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for so fully explaining the ins and outs of these various additions to Schedule 5. On the question of bringing these regulations into line one with the other, I was interested to hear about the devolving of zootechnical feeds and items like that, but the notes to the order talk about some elements that are quite difficult to get one’s head round, such as medicinal products for use in animals that are not veterinary medicinal products or feed additives. First, will the regulations now work in the same way both in England and in Scotland? Secondly, I understood that all of these subjects were controlled under the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in practical terms. Does this mean that the Scottish Parliament will now need to set up its own Veterinary Medicines Directorate because the regulations devolve the matter to the Scottish Parliament?

The Economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence

Earl of Mar and Kellie Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was very lucky that he still had his slippers on when climbing the Ben, because for me this is an even grimmer debate. I read this report with interest and found it helpful. The committee and the United Kingdom Government presume a victory for the “no” campaign. The committee has considered its angle on possible economic implications which, while significant, are of course not the central point of the referendum. I will talk more about constitution than economics.

The committee did not consider the central issue, that of Scottish democracy and self-government. In a sentence: with political independence the people of Scotland always get the Government of their choice. The “no” campaign has not brought forward enough about Scotland’s possible future within the United Kingdom. The “no” parties have probably not finalised their positions. The presumption is of greater powers for Scotland, though I wonder whether there is much more that could be devolved if the four pillars of reservation are to be retained: defence, foreign affairs, macroeconomics and welfare. I hope that my Liberal Democrat noble friends will develop and promote their federal proposal, similar in many ways to that successfully established in Germany after 1945. This federal solution would at least secure a limited sovereign status for the powers of the Scottish Parliament and also define and limit the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament as the federal Parliament.

King James VI was, I believe, keen to become the emperor of Britain in 1603, arguing that he presided over three sovereign states thereby creating an empire. He failed to win his argument. Unfortunately, he also failed to secure sufficient entrenchment for his Scottish kingdom. That made possible the disappointing development of the incorporating union agreed in 1706, led and driven by the Earl of Godolphin.

Heading back to the report, the committee produced a list of the risks of leaving. I ask that the risks of staying be considered. Some of these are as follows. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned, there is involvement in wars which more meet England’s need to be a major power. Secondly, there is the risk of being removed from the European Union because people in south-east England think they will be better off outwith it. Thirdly, the United Kingdom Government might continue to act without consent from Scotland, as happened over the development of the Clyde naval base. Fourthly, consider this: if the people of Scotland wished to develop into a Scandinavian-style social democracy, they would not be allowed to do so. I am sure there are many more risks.

I turn to the use of campaign metaphors. The “no” campaign would have us use the divorce analogy while “yes” campaigners use the metaphor of the family growing up and going their own ways. Noble Lords will generally be familiar with the risks of entering into a marriage and of selecting a career. Neither can political independence be risk free. There seems to be a presumption in the report that the SNP will form the Scottish Government in 2016. I suspect that Labour may well form the Scottish Government, somewhat perversely, after a “yes” vote. In that case, today’s Scottish Government can hardly make hard and fast predictions about what will be negotiated.

It concerns me that the committee seemed to approve of the idea that after a “yes” vote the remainder of the United Kingdom Government should act in a generally hostile fashion towards Scotland, despite the continuation of the regnal union. I know there is the precedent of the trade war with Ireland, which has at least been worked through. That is curious behaviour for the mother of Parliaments. It smacks of “Leave me and I’ll make your life miserable”—surely a relationship with a poor foundation.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Where in the report is there any suggestion that there would be hostility towards an independent Scotland? The report goes out of its way to avoid any language of that kind. Surely the noble Earl is not suggesting that it is hostile to say that if Scotland became independent it could not expect the Bank of England to look after its interests. That is a matter of fact, not of hostility or gentility.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My noble friend is probably right but I read the report and that is what I felt.

Finally, Scotland needs to emerge from its 300-year constitutional sleep. Clearly, the limited powers granted in 1998 were the early stages of that awakening. Our neighbour and comparator country, Norway, emerged in 1905 from a 400-year constitutional sleep. After becoming one of the poorest countries in western Europe, look at it now. The key is that it achieved democracy before it obtained wealth. It decided in 1990 to set up a sovereign wealth fund. The United Kingdom decided not to do so, thereby depriving Scotland of any choice in the matter. I am confident that there will be more constitutional developments in favour of Scottish autonomy irrespective of the actual referendum result. After all, the status quo is not on offer as the Scotland Act 2012 will be implemented between now and 2016. There must be more such developments because a sustainable, permanent settlement is needed. Economics, though significant, must follow the new settlement.

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013

Earl of Mar and Kellie Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I will provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve. It is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, which received Royal Assent on 7 August 2012. I shall refer to this as the 2012 Act.

The 2012 Act creates a single Police Service of Scotland, which will be maintained by the Scottish Police Authority. This service will replace the eight existing police forces maintained by local police authorities and the two central bodies which currently provide national policing services in Scotland. The 2012 Act, together with this order, repeals the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and replaces it with a new statutory framework for policing.

The 2012 Act also creates a single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. This newly created service replaces the two unitary fire and rescue authorities and six joint fire and rescue boards which are currently in place. The 2012 Act amends the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to establish this single fire service.

Additionally, the 2012 Act provides for the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to be renamed the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, with expanded powers to carry out investigations into serious incidents and other matters relating to the police. The 2012 Act also places independent custody visiting in Scotland on a statutory footing, ensuring compliance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture.

As will be seen, it is a very substantial order in terms of size, but I can assure the Committee that it is entirely consequential in content. Its intention is not to make any new policy but simply to ensure the continuity of current arrangements when the 2012 Act comes fully into force on 1 April by updating existing legislation to refer to the newly created Scottish Police Authority, Police Service of Scotland and Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

The order makes provision for mutual aid and collaboration agreements between the new Scottish services and other forces and services in the United Kingdom. For police, this replaces provision in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and, for fire, it provides a clear statutory footing to ensure that the current relationships continue to work effectively. The order will also make certain transitional and savings provisions, again for the purpose of guaranteeing continuity of services.

Following its scrutiny of the order, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew the attention of this House to the instrument on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy which may be of interest to it. I take this opportunity to thank the committee for its consideration of the order and address the issue that it raised.

Article 9 of the order makes it an offence to cause disaffection among members of the Police Service of Scotland, the British Transport Police or the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. It also makes it an offence to induce a member of any of those forces to withhold services.

With regard to the scope of the offence, I assure your Lordships that it is not the intention that an individual would be charged under the offence set out in Article 9 for merely expressing an opinion or legitimate concerns. The UK Government would expect a prosecution to follow only where there was a real and serious attempt to cause disaffection. Such action could lead to a breakdown in the ability of the police to maintain public order and to protect society. Any attempt to undermine the role of the police in this way is a serious matter and must be addressed. That is why we consider this offence to be necessary.

Offences parallel to that proposed in Article 9 already exist in relation to all UK police forces and the specialist forces; namely, the British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Ministry of Defence Police. The Home Office has confirmed that there is no intention to remove the offence in England and Wales, and it is my understanding that its repeal is not being contemplated in Northern Ireland either. These offences are considered to be essential to the proper operation of policing. The intention of the order is to ensure that the new Police Service of Scotland can continue to work effectively with the other police forces within the UK. Not to include this offence would cause a discrepancy between constables of the Police Service of Scotland and those of other UK forces. It would also cause a discrepancy, for example, between members of the British Transport Police operating in Scotland and their colleagues in England and Wales.

It may well be the case that your Lordships’ House will wish to consider the terms of this offence in a wider context. I would submit that the purpose of this order is simply to maintain continuity and consistency between the new Police Service of Scotland and other forces across the UK. It would not be appropriate if the Scottish Government had proposed removing the offence for forces operating in Scotland as this would leave a significant gap for effective policing throughout the United Kingdom. Moreover, if your Lordships’ House continues to have concerns about the general policy surrounding the offence of disaffection, it would not be appropriate to use this technical piece of subordinate legislation to address such wider concern here as this order is concerned with maintaining effective policing in Scotland and ensuring continuity of current policing arrangements.

With regard to the instrument as a whole, it is worth noting that this order is part of a much wider legislative programme to provide a smooth transition to the new police and fire services in Scotland. Indeed, 15 other instruments have been laid to date in the Scottish Parliament, and I understand that 10 more are planned, while a related order, the Scottish Administration (Offices) Order 2012 (SI 2012/3073) was considered by Her Majesty in Council and subsequently laid before this Parliament on 19 December 2012.

Work on this consequential order has been undertaken by more than 20 departments within the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government, who have agreed that the provisions in this order are necessary to ensure the effective operation of the new police and fire services in Scotland and the continuation of effective relationships with their partners throughout the UK. With the 2012 Act completing its passage through the Scottish Parliament only in June last year, agreement on the policy and the drafting of the instrument has been concluded at an excellent pace, with great credit to all those involved across the different Governments.

It is also fair to point out that neither coalition party in the Government here at Westminster was supportive of the measure when it went through the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, my party opposed it and the Conservative Party abstained. Nevertheless, I believe that it is consistent with the spirit and mutual respect that we give effect to an Act properly passed by the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, it was passed by 101 votes to six with 14 abstentions. I believe that it demonstrates the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that this Committee will agree that this order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical result is an example of how we can make devolution work. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, I am perfectly happy with what the Scottish Parliament has legislated for and I am happy with the order. I should like to record my surprise at the strategy of going for a national police force in Scotland. It certainly has been the tradition in Scotland and across the whole of Britain as an island that policing should be organised locally. At home, I have maps which point out where the Alloa borough police force was: it had a chief constable, a sergeant and 10 constables. The tradition in Britain has been one of local policing.

I also acknowledge that in another part of English-speaking Europe, in Ireland, that it always has had national policing. After 1922, the Royal Irish Constabulary was replaced by two national forces—the RUC and the Garda Siochana. I want to record the fact that I am surprised by the strategy which apparently we want to have in Scotland, while I am very happy about us having a strategy in Scotland.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the Opposition support the measure, which as yet is another example of continuing devolution. I will not pay tribute to the Minister’s staff today because the last time I praised one of them, she mysteriously vanished and we have never seen her again. I do not know quite what he has done to her but I hope that she survives and makes a further appearance. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has mentioned the Scottish tradition of policing but we all have to recognise devolution and its implications. There was a consultation process that was very supportive and there did not seem to be any dissenting voices to the proposal. As the Minister rightly says, this is necessary after the 2012 Act. I cannot quite remember the context in which he mentioned torture, but I do not think that that has relevance on this.

There are comparisons with other nations and regions of the United Kingdom—we all understand the Northern Ireland one—but the Scottish Government have considerable powers and I can understand why there are reservations about having a national police force against a background of the police always being regionally organised. I was on the police and fire committee of Strathclyde regional council, which has a very good operation. The Minister mentioned that there were 14 abstentions in the Scottish Parliament—I presume that that was his own party, or did the Liberal Democrats vote against? I welcome the conversion and hope that we can have further co-operation like that.

Although the report is rightly subject to scrutiny and questioning, I want to develop a wee bit further the principle of disaffection. As a trade unionist, the word “disaffection” towards anything raises questions. It has been mentioned that some of the clarification that the Minister’s staff was able to pass on was on questions asked by the committee regarding who could be charged with disaffection. The initial reply seemed to indicate that only certain police could be charged with disaffection, but further clarification suggested that it could apply to a member of the public as well. Although I totally accept the Minister’s point that the Government do not envisage anyone being charged with this wrongly, unfairly, or whatever, he will know better than I do that legal history is full of people who have been prosecuted for offences for which at the time it was indicated they would not be prosecuted. So, I would like further clarification on disaffection because the police are different. It is acknowledged that they are not allowed to join trade unions. We have to have law and order and a legal system, so it is right that in case anybody tries to suborn or undermine the police in carrying out their duties, the defence should stay in.

I press the Minister to go a bit further in giving us assurances that no “innocent bystanders” who have had a pint too much on a Saturday night and preach treason—I have certainly done that myself a few times with pints of soda water and lime, I hasten to add—will be prosecuted. I seek assurances that ordinary members of the public, letting off steam—to use one of the expressions mentioned—will not be liberally prosecuted. I will leave it at that and hope that the Minister can give us some of those answers. That will reassure me.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Earl of Mar and Kellie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, very briefly, and by way of introduction, I believe the referendum will lead to Scotland becoming a better democracy. The process we are involved in at the present moment, and the fact that the Edinburgh agreement was signed in Edinburgh, is a great improvement on what happened in 1921 after a ceasefire in July and fraught negotiations in Downing Street led to a treaty that people probably did not want to sign. The Westminster Parliament has made progress.

I am also mindful of the fact that the original treaty negotiations were held in London in the summer of 1706, and it is a curious phenomenon but the two sides were not allowed to meet. They had to negotiate from separate rooms, sending messengers to each other. We should make certain that we do not remain in that position. At the present moment, listening to the debate, it does slightly sound as though this House wants to talk to the Scottish Parliament without meeting its Members. I hope we can continue to make progress towards proper democratic discussion.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, the noble Earl is concerned that people only met at a later stage in separate rooms. People in negotiations that I have been involved in have been in separate nations, separate continents and different places before we actually got together, so we are well versed in “proximity talks”, which I think was the phraseology that was invented to cover those circumstances.

We seem in this country, of late, to have developed referendumitis, because we are looking at a whole series of them now. Indeed, later this week, we may be offered a menu for further referenda. Not wishing to be outdone by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the sole English contributor to this debate, I felt it appropriate for my part of the world to make a few comments, because, as noble Lords have said throughout the debate, all of us would be affected one way or the other. However, the most important thing is that we are a union with component parts, and there is no doubt in my mind that the people of Scotland have a right to choose. The job of this Parliament is to ensure that the choice is fair and that the options are put to them clearly, as has been said many times before.

I will just deal with the order, because noble Lords will all have great sympathy with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has said today. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, who is not in his place at the moment, put his finger on it. Whether we like it or not and whether this Parliament has had enough time to debate it or not—and I think it has not—the fact is that the Prime Minister and the First Minister have shaken hands. Quite frankly, any departure from that at this stage would have cataclysmic results on the implications and how that would be spun in the circumstances. It is done, and whether we like it or not, we have to work with it.

I will also deal with the point of breakdown. When we had our referendum—nearly 15 years ago, believe it or not—I had the task of being co-ordinator for the Ulster Unionist Party’s “yes” campaign. Not only were communities divided but so were families—husbands, wives, sons and daughters—and some of those scars have not yet healed. Let us be under no illusions but that the tone in which the debate is conducted is going to very important for the long-term relationships. People keep telling us today of the implications of the miners’ strike and the differences that arose there, and I know that both communities and individuals remained very divided.

Questions of this nature are extremely divisive, and constitutional questions, certainly where I come from, are exceptionally divisive. What we are witnessing at home at the moment is terribly sad. Sadly, Mr Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, in his new year message, as reinforced in an article yesterday, is now trying to promote a referendum in Northern Ireland. Under the Belfast agreement, the only question, effectively, is, “Do you wish to be part of a united Ireland?”. Putting that particular, most divisive, issue front and centre as your main campaign for the next few years running up to 2016—the 100th anniversary of the rebellion in Dublin—is irresponsible to say the least in the present circumstances. When we should be talking about our economy and trying to get young people into work, I would have thought that talking about a referendum is the last place anybody wants to be. I deeply regret that.

With regard to complacency, I strongly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has just said. If you have a 50% turnout, 33% can be 66%. You will get differential turnouts; I have seen it happen. If one side of the argument feels, “Ach, well it will be all right on the night”, but the diehards on whatever side of the argument come out, the percentages in an opinion poll are almost an irrelevance. It is who turns out on the day that matters.

I share the concerns about intelligibility and all these sorts of things. These arguments go over people’s heads. We have had three terms used in this debate already: “country”, “state” and “nation”. If you go and ask somebody for a definition, we all slip in and out of that language in our own parlance. As an Ulsterman looking across the channel at Scotland, to me, Scotland is a country. It has to be a country; if it were not, it would be part of the amorphous landmass of Great Britain. If it is not a country, why does it have its own law, traditions and different languages? Why does it have a history of attitudes, religion and a pioneering spirit and all that goes with that? Of course it is a country. I also think it is an independent country, because it has all those things, which define a country. However, if we get into an argument with somebody in the street about whether a country and a state are two different things, and if we have to go to the door arguing and trying to explain the difference between those things, I fear we are in some difficulty.

All I can say, with the experience that we have had, is that this will be divisive. We have to try to keep the best humour possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, but not underestimating the downsides and implications—and try to keep the argument as simple as possible. I sincerely hope that the people of Scotland will choose to remain within the union, because it would have huge implications for us if they did not. It is their decision, and I respect that, but the playing field has to be level, with nobody manipulating it, and the question asked has to be a genuine question that makes it clear that they are seceding from the United Kingdom. Anything less than that will leave an argument. There are still people in Northern Ireland today who do not accept the referendum result that we had, even though it was won with 71.5%. Because of our cross-community issues, people say, “Oh, well not enough of this group voted or of that group”. I can think of nothing worse or more corrosive than an argument over the process. I sincerely wish the people of Scotland well, but sincerely hope that the Government do not allow anybody to wipe their eye in the months ahead.

Forestry Commissioners (Climate Change Functions) (Scotland) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2012

Earl of Mar and Kellie Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister, who, as usual, has made his staff available for any advice and/or assistance. I have a slight regret about the noble and learned Lord’s ever so polite attitude because, being used to another place, I sometimes like a wee bit of aggression but I am still waiting for the Minister to show that quality.

Turning to the legislative context, where in Scotland did the push for this come from? Although I do not stay near a lot of forest, nevertheless it is quite a big issue in some parts of Scotland. Why was this initiative taken, and what was the background to it? The policy background mentions wind farms. That is not an uncontroversial issue. I was wondering how that came about.

I have always tended to suspect the reporting of consultations because it is usually in the eye of the beholder, who wants a particular result. What is the current position on the consultation? Is it completely finished or are there still ramifications because people are making complaints or expressing their support? Is it still an issue? In addition, it is stated that a number of the concerns that were expressed have been addressed. Does the Minister know the specific issues that were identified and then responded to? Can he give an indication of how the consultation was handled? Was it just an exercise from on high or was there a definite consultation?

Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is headed “Impact” and states:

“This instrument has no impact of a regulatory nature”,

and goes on to say that the,

“impact on the public sector is insignificant”.

The one thing missing from that is public opinion. If it was insignificant, that is fine, but if there was a reaction, it would be a crucial factor. I would like to know if there were any expressions of public opinion. Is that the reason why a full impact assessment was not produced?

Although paragraph 12 states that the:

“Forestry Commission Scotland publishes an Annual Report and Accounts which is laid before the Scottish Parliament”,

is that the scope of the accountability? I know about devolution, but is there any further scope for the Westminster Government to be consulted? In short, is the whole issue of accountability now devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Obviously this is a comparatively minor arrangement, but never the less it is right to ask questions here in your Lordships’ Chamber and thus subject the order to a bit of gentle scrutiny.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, speaking as a backwoodsman, I approve of giving explicit powers to one of the largest landowners in Scotland and thereby removing all the Forestry Commission land from the renewables area. I certainly approve of the widening of the geographic scope for renewables, especially as it takes the pressure off other areas that may be more beautiful and which are worth retaining in that context. The order considerably widens the already broad remit of the Forestry Commission, which is now far wider than its remit in 1919, which was to produce timber. The commission will now get involved with leisure, recreation, health, landscape management, footpaths, cycle paths, biodiversity, wood fuel and still, indeed, the production of timber. I support all forms of renewable energy, and especially hydro. I am pleased to see that two hydro schemes have already been identified. I would encourage the commissioners to have another look at small-scale hydro projects on the hill burns. I also suspect that they are bound to put up some wind turbines, or allow a partner to put them up.

My final point is particularly related to that. Once a site has been established, it is grid-connected pretty much for all time. It is hoped that the generating technology may well improve and something other than wind farms will come to take their place. The important point is that the sites themselves are grid-connected.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords—