Ivory Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for adding his name to some of the amendments that I tabled and for listening clearly and sympathetically to what was said in Committee. I had the privilege of a brief conversation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, yesterday and he told me that he was pretty well satisfied and very sorry that, because of the engagement to which my noble friend referred, he could not be with us this evening. I said that I would mention our conversation and his satisfaction was certainly influential as far as I am concerned.

I have not got the whole loaf that I asked for in Committee, and my noble friend will recognise that, but he has gone a long way to easing our concerns. I shy away from the idea of civilian accredited officers but I accept the logic of what my noble friend said a few moments ago and I am content. I only wish that he could have been as conciliatory and obliging on some of the other amendments that I moved on the Bill, but I realise that his room for manoeuvre was somewhat limited. I thank him very much and give my full support.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, as a member of the Constitution Committee I subscribed to the amendments which were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in Committee and I was delighted to be able support the concerns that he articulated so well about these provisions, which the Government have addressed very fairly. They have gone a considerable way to meeting the concerns that were expressed in the Constitution Committee’s report.

I know from conversations that I have had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that he has been very appreciative of the time and consideration that the Minister has given to these issues. We have here a set of amendments which very much address these concerns, in terms of the restriction of the powers of accredited civilian officers, the role of OPSS and the designation that will be forthcoming under the 2006 legislation. It is a very good model of how this House works where a Committee produces a report and the Government listen and engage and come forward with some substantive changes which acknowledge the concerns that were originally raised. I am happy to support the amendments.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I deeply regret and resent the fact that we are having to discuss this and waste the House’s time. We had an opportunity at the beginning of the day to make an unequivocal declaration that we would grant these rights to EU citizens. We voted in that sense, a number of us spoke in that sense and we had a large majority in that sense. Yet here we are, arguing. Frankly, I agree that the amendment is necessary, but we are now arguing unnecessarily about something we could have taken the moral high ground over and dealt with immediately after we had activated Article 50. It is indicative of the mess into which we have got ourselves, and we are taking up so much parliamentary time that should be devoted to other things. I bitterly resent it and wanted to get that on the record.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, as someone who is a co-signatory of the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I support what he said and also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. This should be a no-brainer.

The United Kingdom Government have agreed with the European Union; the terms of that agreement were set out in paragraph 38 of the document of 8 December 2017, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has spoken them into the record. If one goes back to paragraph 33 of the same document, it is interesting to read that:

“It is of paramount importance to both Parties to give as much certainty as possible to UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK about their future rights. The Parties have therefore reached agreement on the following specific set of arrangements to implement and enforce the citizens’ rights Part of the agreement”.


Admittedly, a later paragraph suggests that the bestowing of or guarantee of rights will come in the withdrawal agreement implementation Bill, but if one reads the paragraph on the consistent interpretation of citizens’ rights, one will see that there is no such commitment there with regard to a future Bill. It would not be right for this Parliament to pass a Bill which cuts off recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Union when we have already agreed that that avenue should be open in this specific case of ensuring consistency in determining the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom and UK citizens living in the European Union.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that if at the end of the day there is no agreement and we go crashing out, surely he is not suggesting that we would not honour our commitment. We have made that commitment to European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom citizens living in the European Union. It must send some very alarming signs to UK citizens living abroad if it is suggested that, should we go crashing out, nothing will be done to establish or secure the rights of those citizens—

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I said, these are not academic issues but very real ones. The Human Rights Act could certainly give rise to them as indeed could measures in the Trade Union Bill. They would not necessarily be issues between Governments; they could be issues that impacted on other public bodies in Scotland, for example. That is why it is regrettable that the Government have not been more forthcoming and willing to look at the proposals that we want to put on the statute book.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, both noble and learned Lords have made powerful points. I do not wish to make anything other than a very brief intervention, but I have amendments, strongly supported both in Committee and on Report, concerning the word “normally”. I am extremely sorry that the Minister has not really met that point. It has been made with great eloquence by noble Lords learned in the law, and it was made by those of us throughout the United Kingdom who share the concern of the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken. I am sorry that their amendments have not been deemed admissible. Of course they have done entirely properly in not seeking to move them, but this is an unsatisfactory Bill and we are in an unsatisfactory situation.

I put it on record that I remain extremely concerned about the use of this very loose word “normally”. I believe as a layman that it is clearly something that could be justiciable. I know not what will happen, but I fear that we are not putting on the statute book something that recognises what noble Lords in all parts of this House have recognised. In my opinion this is a flaw in the Bill, and it has been demonstrated as such by many people. I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to move on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, a constant theme in your Lordships’ House is that the other place has inadequate opportunity to scrutinise legislation thoroughly. When we say that, we always then go on to say that in your Lordships’ House things are different. In this case, they are not. It is nothing short of disgraceful that the other place has not had an opportunity to debate the fiscal framework. Twenty-nine of us put our views on that on the record when we had a Division a few weeks ago, but it was a vain gesture.

I speak as a Member of your Lordships’ House who feels proud of our reputation for scrutiny and our ability to look at Bills forensically and to get change by either passing more amendments or, more regularly, by getting the Government to recognise that points of substance have been made and that alterations of substance should follow. In this case, that has not been possible.

It is deeply regrettable that that is the case. I make no personal criticism of my noble friends on the Front Bench; they are men of great charm and ability. However, they have been working under orders and have not been able to respond to points of real weight and substance because the brief has not allowed them to do so. In so many ways, this is a one-off Bill. I trust, above all, that in the context of scrutiny it will remain a one-off Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I thought that the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, in replying to the last amendment, when he thanked everybody, were more suitable for the Bill do now pass debate. However, although I did not take part in that discussion, I would not wish in any way to lessen the appreciation I express on behalf of my colleagues to those who have helped to get the Bill to its present state, not least the Bill team, with some of whom I have worked in the past and know of their exceptional quality and hard work. I particularly thank the Minister, who with his customary courtesy has gone out of his way to meet us, engage with us and discuss issues with us—regrettably, not always to any effect from my point of view, but no doubt from his point of view it has been very effective. That is very much appreciated.

Aspects of this process have not been at all satisfactory. The short period that we had in which to look at the fiscal framework was not satisfactory. The Bill could be in a better state than it is and perhaps more favourably reflect the spirit of the Smith commission. The House has not done much to respect, or even give proper consideration to, the points made by the Scottish Parliament’s committee that looked at the Bill. Those are matters of regret and do not augur well for having mutual respect and trying to improve the relationships between the institutions of the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. But that is where we are.

This amendment addresses the Barnett formula. The Minister referred to the vow in his wind-up speech. I happen to believe that the referendum was won in spite of rather than because of it. However, it is important that we celebrate the fact that we won the referendum and are not facing independence day on Thursday of this week, with one dreads to think what consequences.

I note that, when I stood where the Minister stands now, the most difficult question I ever had to answer in one of these debates came from the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, who referred to the vow. It says:

“We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen”.

It goes on to refer to the,

“continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

I was asked how I could square the equitable sharing of resources with the continuation of the Barnett formula. I struggled to find an answer. I will allow the Minister to find his.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan]

I am sorry. I realise that we are moving towards a vote and I do not wish to take much more of the House’s time. All I want to say is this. It is very dangerous for people, first, to reinterpret manifestos once they have been the substance of electoral victory; and, secondly, to use that as an excuse to undermine elected representatives and local government who have a sensible and fair means of determining the priorities of the planning requirements for all of the communities they represent.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long. When we engaged after the debate on recommital late last week, we hoped that the Government might have moved a lot further than they did. I acknowledge the amendments that have been made, but they do not go to the heart of many of the concerns of the industry. In fact, there is still a blatant unfairness for those who have observed good practice and have tried to work with local planning authorities.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that local democracy matters, developers have worked alongside communities and planning authorities, but because they did not take the route of having a deemed refusal, they are falling foul of this.

[Lord Cormack]

One of the things we have to bear in mind is that a number of wind farms were granted permission not by local authorities, but by being overruled from the top. Indeed, Lincolnshire County Council was against a number of wind farms that have been thrust upon the county.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that the noble Lord almost makes my point because, as far as I understand what is being proposed by the Government, local authorities which have refused an application before 18 June, but which was subsequently appealed successfully on a decision taken by Ministers, will actually qualify. But an agreement reached by locally elected people and a locally elected planning committee after debate, consideration and engagement with the local community, but where the subsequent consent as part of that route due to the cycle of meetings was not given until after 18 June will not qualify. Perhaps he has done so inadvertently, but the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, profoundly makes the point that we are making. There is an inconsistency and an unfairness in what the Government are proposing. There is inconsistency between Section 36 applications for smaller developments added on to existing developments and those which do not need Section 36 applications. I do not believe that the Government have made out the case for fairness of treatment, given the test which their own Minister articulated yesterday.

I am sure that we will debate the Salisbury convention at some stage, and I hope that we will take note of the report of the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Conventions, which sat around 10 years ago. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was then the deputy leader of my party in your Lordships’ House, emphasised the Liberal Democrats’ view that,

“‘the Salisbury-Addison Convention was an historical negotiation between the Labour Party in the Commons and the Conservative Party in the Lords’ and therefore not relevant to current circumstances”.

We articulated that position almost 10 years ago, and I think that the report itself accepted that things had moved on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said that it was an opportunity for the Government to think again. We certainly want to engage with them in thinking again, because I do not believe that what we have at the moment is fair to developers who had a reasonable expectation that a system which was due to close in March 2017 has been brought forward by a year. In the end, as the Government’s own impact assessment states, the central estimate is around 30p on the electricity bill of the average household. Given the potential damage to the industry and the damage that this is doing to investor confidence in other areas of the renewable industry, it is important that the Government should think again. They have not been able to come up with satisfactory ways of addressing some of the many legitimate complaints that the industry has expressed.

Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on coming forward with this Motion. It is not because we on these Benches do not think there is an issue to be addressed; rather, we think that the Government have gone about it in a somewhat rushed way, with little or no consideration of the possible constitutional consequences.

I heed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who has considerable experience in these matters, that the House of Lords ought to be cautious when we are dealing with matters that relate to the internal workings of the other place. But if these internal workings, and the manner in which the Government are going about it, have important constitutional consequences, then it is a matter for this House to have regard to as well. This is perhaps a classic example of a measure that flashes the warning sign: “Beware the law of unintended consequences”.

Many of these points have been rehearsed, but we know it will be very difficult to determine whether a clause or a schedule, to quote the draft Standing Orders, would be,

“within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to make any corresponding provision for Scotland in an Act of that Parliament”—

that being the test for whether or not it was a matter that the Speaker could certify. It is not an easy matter to determine, as I indicated last week. When I was Advocate-General for Scotland, much of my office was looking at these matters and trying to determine where the boundaries of competence were. Indeed, I had the privilege of appearing before the Supreme Court, presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on a matter relating to the sale of tobacco products to children. Ultimately it was the Supreme Court that determined whether the matter was within or outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said in our deliberations last week, these issues could bring the Speaker into some legal and political controversy. What if, for example, the Speaker certifies a measure as satisfying the test but subsequently the Scottish Parliament seeks to bring forward exactly the same legislation and the Supreme Court determines that in fact it was not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament? No doubt the Speaker’s certificate would be final but you would have a very difficult situation where the Supreme Court decided something that the Speaker or the Speaker’s Counsel had got wrong. As has also been said, we are treading on ground that could raise issues about Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Even if it is not justiciable, it will not necessarily stop someone trying to make it justiciable, and all sorts of issues could arise there.

I also note that the draft Standing Orders say:

“Where either the whole House or the English, or English and Welsh, MPs do not agree to a motion relating to the Lords amendments, the amendments are not agreed and a message to this effect is sent to the House of Lords”.

We would be dealing with a situation where an amendment has been passed by your Lordships’ House—indeed, it could have been passed by the House of Commons—which, in the past, anyone would have thought had been passed by both Houses and should then go to Her Majesty for Royal Assent, but we are being told that in fact that would not necessarily lead to a measure being put forward for Royal Assent. That is an important constitutional issue. It may not affect the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House but it has implications for your Lordships’ House.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may wish to intervene and articulate this more, but he made an important point last week about the provisions that were added in relation to finance—that it could well be the case that the substantial part of the Government’s supply from income tax would be deemed to be a matter only for English MPs or English and Welsh MPs to determine. So you could have a situation where English and Welsh MPs could veto the supply of the majority party in the House of Commons. I am not saying that it could not be done—under these provisions it would be done—but it has important constitutional consequences. Therefore, I do not believe it is sensible to proceed piecemeal by way of Standing Orders of the other place, and that is why the proposal that has come from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is one that I hope this House will pass and which I hope the other place will take seriously.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The solution that the Government have come up with in the other place is, to put it mildly, far from perfect. But we have one problem in this House this afternoon: we cannot establish a Joint Committee. We can express a view and say that we think that there should be a Joint Committee—personally, I would welcome that—but we can also try to ensure that the matter is referred to our Constitution Committee. I believe that there are repercussions for this House and that we have to take the issue extremely seriously.

Altering the constitution in this way, almost by sleight of hand, does no service to any of us who care about the stature of Parliament, the relationship between the two Houses and the responsibility of this House in particular. My noble friend Lady Stowell has already indicated that there will be a full day’s debate in September, which is good and welcome. But I hope that when she comes to reply from the Front Bench she will be able to go further and say that she, as Leader of the House, will personally ask the Constitution Committee of this House, which has an enviable reputation for working thoroughly and fairly expeditiously, to try to report in time for that debate—but, if not, very shortly afterwards. We are entering a legislative quagmire here and it is far more important that we get it right—here, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—than that we achieve it quickly.

We have had too much government by gimmick and deadline over the last year. I have quoted this before in the House: something must be done by St Andrew’s Day and something else by St David’s Day. We are playing with the constitution of the United Kingdom, in which I hope that most of us truly believe, and if we are to safeguard the United Kingdom in this new era of extra devolution, we have to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom Parliament—a Parliament in which all Members are equal.

It may well be, as I believe, that there is a very good case for reducing the number of Members from Scotland when current legislation is on the statute book, and in time for the next general election. There is precedent for that both in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the extremely convoluted arrangement that is currently proposed is likely to create far more problems than it solves. Of course I welcome the idea of a review after one year, but I would rather that we did not go there. I urge my noble friend to give serious consideration to making a personal request to the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House to look at this matter very quickly.

Scotland: Draft Legislation

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Any of us following the Scottish media, and probably even further than the boundaries of Scotland, saw that appalling scene when the report was burned. In fact, I have an instinctive gut horror at people burning any literature or writing and I find it very insidious. The SNP members of the commission signed that report and should be held to that. If they start complaining, they should be reminded of that. Nor was it signed at a low level: the Deputy First Minister signed on behalf of the SNP, along with Miss Fabiani. Therefore, it was signed at a high level and backsliding will be exposed.

What can be done about local government is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which we can pursue within our respective parties. I do not think that it is really a matter for this Parliament to start legislating for local government in Scotland but we can create some of the mood music. I know from debates we have had in your Lordships’ House that from all parts of the United Kingdom and all parts of the House there has been a strong view of the need to decentralise more power in this country.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if we are to have stability and if this is going to be an enduring settlement, would it not be reasonable, particularly bearing in mind what the noble Baroness said a few moments ago, to have within the final Bill a clause which rules out a referendum for at least 10 years?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend will recall that the referendum required a Section 30 order to be passed by this House. It was certainly the view of the United Kingdom Government that there was no legal competence within the Scottish Parliament to do so and there is nothing in these draft clauses that would change that. It would still be a matter for this House and the other place to pass a Section 30 order if there were to be a further referendum.

Scotland: Smith Commission

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while of course promises given by leaders must be honoured, and we accept that clauses—which I hope will be debated in this House in detail—will be produced by 25 January, there is a real danger in deadline democracy? There is no situation in politics or any other aspect of life that is not made worse by panic.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I heed what my noble friend says. It is also fair to say that much in the heads of agreement that has emerged today is based on previous work. In my party’s case, it was done by a commission under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell. Proposals came from the work done by the Labour Party. The Conservative Party produced proposals through a committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. So the Smith commission had a considerable volume of work available to it to help to formulate its proposals. My noble friend, and my noble friend Lord Baker, mentioned the opportunity to debate. My noble friend the Leader of the House is here, and the understandable wish for further debate will certainly be taken on board by the usual channels.

Scotland: Devolution

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my experience is that Cabinet committees tend to be that. They are Cabinet committees. However, as we have experienced in this debate, the debate is not confined to those members of the committee. It would be very helpful if there were contributions from not just the two coalition parties, which, as the noble Baroness points out, are not entirely at one in this, as the article by my right honourable friend David Laws has shown. It would be very healthy if we had views, not only from the other political parties but others as well.

[Lord Cormack]

I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend. A variety of views on English laws have been expressed in the debate. But surely one message has come through very clearly: people do not want to rush this. Many people who have made this point have also said that this is an appropriate subject for a commission or a convention.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we are not just going to park it. I was coming on to the very point that my noble friend makes about the convention. I have a whole list here—I am not going to read it out—of noble Lords who have talked about a convention—that constitutional change should be achieved through a convention. I make it clear that the Government will consider proposals for the establishment of such a convention because, while debate is needed in both Houses, it is important that we engage with the public as well. We should not simply be continuing our constitution behind closed doors, if that is what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition was suggesting. We must listen to other people’s views and opinions on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said it should not be a top-down approach. Many of us would accept that view.

Scotland: Devolution Commission

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think I was answering very directly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I made the self-evident point that there was a difference between people elected to represent a territorial part of the country and Peers of the United Kingdom. However, the so-called West Lothian question is a live issue that has been around for far longer than even Mr Tam Dalyell. A number of proposals have been put forward, including comprehensive proposals from the McKay commission. I know that my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke chaired a commission for the Conservative Party, and my right honourable friend David Laws has put forward ideas on behalf of my own party. It is important that these issues are addressed. The Prime Minister set up a committee under the chairmanship of William Hague to look at this issue, among other things, and I very much hope that it can proceed on a cross-party basis, if possible.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is it not important that Mr Hague’s committee does not come to premature conclusions? What the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said about categories of Members of Parliament and of this House is exactly right. What is at risk is the future unity of the United Kingdom, and any short-cut solution on the basis of the glib “English votes for English laws” will not necessarily safeguard the long-term interests of this country.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that I am on safe ground in otherwise difficult territory in saying that the one thing that everyone is united upon is the importance of the United Kingdom. Proposals on any part of constitutional reform must be looked at on the basis of whether they will sustain the United Kingdom. There would be no point, having gone through the trauma of a referendum and having established Scotland’s place and integrity within the United Kingdom, going about constitutional proposals that start unpicking the ties that bind us.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, what an independent Scotland does after independence day would be a matter for an independent Scotland. I think that is common ground. If it wants to legislate nonsense then it can. That would be the decision of an independent Scotland.

[Lord Cormack]

I am very troubled about this, as many of us are, against the background of the deal the Government did with the Scottish Government. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, nods vigorously. Can we at least have an absolute undertaking from my noble and learned friend that when the Government have considered this we will have a full Statement in the House and an opportunity to ask questions?

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for this amendment and for the opportunity to discuss these issues on constituency limits. It is an issue that has featured in discussions not only today but at previous stages of the Bill’s passage. It is appropriate that we give consideration to this, which members of the commission might see as the outstanding item still to be addressed. The amendments are very similar to those tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler on Report. My noble friend’s amendment, which we discussed last week, sought to narrow the range of activities which would be considered controlled expenditure for the purposes of constituency limits. Although I made no commitment on the part of the Government to returning to this at Third Reading, I indicated at the close of the debates on Report that we would ensure that officials raised these matters with the Electoral Commission.

I understand the point about simplicity. We have sought in many respects to reduce the administrative burden, but it was clear from the discussions that took place subsequently with the Electoral Commission that there was no technical fix. My noble friend Lord Tyler was almost asking me the same again at the end of his contribution to the debate on this amendment. There was not a technical fix but there might be a policy fix. It is a policy fix that is inherent in the amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which would remove some categories of expenditure from being counted towards the constituency limit. For reasons that I will explain, the Government are unable to accept that there should be that policy switch.

First, I acknowledge that, in moving the amendment, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, accepted the principle of constituency limits and sought to address one of the points of concern I had raised with regard to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tyler. He also sought to address the practical issues raised by the Electoral Commission. In the context of trying to relieve some of the administrative burden—going back to the earlier debate, just to remind your Lordships’ House—it is also important that the original proposals had a limit for the constituency spending and a smaller limit for the post-Dissolution period. There was a much smaller limit for campaigning activity that could be spent between the date of the Dissolution of Parliament and the election. We have taken away that interim threshold, again in an effort to help smaller organisations which may be campaigning in one constituency.

We believe that these amendments would require that any expenditure on election material addressed or delivered to households, and any unsolicited telephone calls made with a view to ascertaining households’ voting intentions, would be attributed to a particular constituency or constituencies for the purposes of the limits. The noble and right reverend Lord’s intention appears to be that only expenditure on such activities should count towards constituency limits. He goes further than my noble friend Lord Tyler did last week to suggest considering the costs associated with the distribution of materials otherwise in a constituency—which was the example I gave. I fully accept the example that I gave of activity in a shopping centre, which clearly would relate to the one activity.

I was somewhat bemused by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, when she complained that there was a loophole. It appears to me that if you take away other activities which have to contribute towards controlled expenditure, the loophole gets bigger. She indicated that it could be a loophole to have a rally just over the constituency boundary. First, whether a rally against a hospital closure that promotes the electoral success of one particular candidate counts towards a constituency limit depends on whether it has a significant effect in that constituency. Albeit that it takes place over the boundary in a neighbouring constituency, it could still have a significant effect in the first constituency and would therefore come within it. Of course, the loophole that would be created by this amendment would be the rally in the constituency itself—over the boundary it would not count at all. I believe that is a criticism: there are activities that would not therefore come within the definition of “controlled expenditure”.

Constituency limits for third parties mean that they cannot outspend and overwhelm candidates and political parties, who after all are the main actors in an election. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, made an important point, reminding us that elections are about the names of candidates on the ballot paper. It is not right that a candidate or a party campaigning in a constituency could be targeted by a third party with greater means and a greater spending limit at its disposal.

Taking into account both the long and short campaigning period limits, the most a candidate at the last parliamentary general election could have spent was £55,000; that is for the entire period. I may have misunderstood what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, but I thought she said at one point that parties could spend without limit. That is not the case. There is a limit on political parties. Indeed, in the course of the election period—the short campaign from the Dissolution of Parliament—it is roughly £12,000 to £13,000, depending on the number of electors, a figure that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack in one of our earlier debates.

However, a third party could choose to spend the entirety of its current spending limit in one small area, campaigning against that and other candidates or the parties they represent. That could be very substantial if one allows a range of activities not to be in any way brought into controlled expenditure. We have previously heard concerns that third parties, although an important part of the democratic process, can also be so closely aligned to a political party as to be effectively campaigning to promote that party. It is right that we take account of that. That is why the Bill introduces a number of provisions to give greater transparency to the activities and expenditure of third parties. The limits on constituency spending are a key element of the entire package in the Bill. The controlled expenditure incurred on the entire range of activities, not just those few proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, should be attributable to constituency limits.

Third parties are not merely in the business of distributing leaflets. They arrange and hold events, rallies and press conferences. They bus campaigners from area to area, delivering large groups of people to distribute those leaflets, or to take part in rallies or other events. Not to include these activities would mean that third parties could still continue to hold local media events on a weekly, or even daily, basis in the run-up to an election without any of that expenditure being brought within controlled limits. It would mean a third party could hold a rally on the eve of an election, secure in the knowledge that it need not account for the cost other than on a nationwide basis. It would mean that a third party could bus hundreds of campaigners into marginal constituencies and overwhelm the work of the candidates in that constituency.

These are all significant activities, and it is right that third parties should be required to account for them on a constituency basis. Narrowing the scope of constituency limits would address only half the problem. On that basis, recognising that in an election the actors are the candidates themselves, it was unfair, particularly in the period from the Dissolution of Parliament until the election, that they were limited to a relatively small sum of money—£12,000 or £13,000—while if you got two third-party groups in the same constituency, they could spend up to £19,750. We do not think that it is reasonable that a loophole should be created.

[Lord Cormack]

I would be most grateful if the Minister would reflect on one suggestion. I think that he would agree with me that Clause 29 is not the easiest of clauses to understand, particularly for those who are not familiar with legislative language. Would the Minister be prepared to have a conference with the Electoral Commission to try to draw up some mutually agreed guidelines to, and interpretation of, this new law? It is very important, and that would be extremely helpful—particularly bearing in mind that we have this ridiculous businesses of the Bill being in another place tomorrow. I cannot see the reason for that; maybe the Minister could comment on it.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

The fact is that post-legislative scrutiny—which I am a great advocate of—is no substitute for a sunset clause, which brings the Bill to a proper stop. We do not have the power to do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will very briefly say that of course we need to be aware of the effects of any legislation and that often these effects do not become clear until after the legislation is in force. As far as Part 2 is concerned, the Electoral Commission already has, under PPERA, the statutory function of reporting on the conduct of elections. That report will include how third-party campaigning is carried out.

I reassure your Lordships that we agree that the impact of the provisions of Part 6 of PPERA, which would include, if it passes, the measures in Part 2 of this Bill, should be subject to a review after the 2015 UK parliamentary general election. The passage of the Bill has shown that the provisions of PPERA are not necessarily as widely known as they ought to be, and even less well understood. The 2015 election will provide an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the provisions of Part 6 of PPERA as enhanced by Part 2 of this Bill.

The Government are still considering the precise details of the review but we commit to laying the review before Parliament, and a government amendment to that effect will be tabled on Report. Such a review was recommended by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, led by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and we are grateful to him for that recommendation. When the review is carried out, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider how to respond to its findings.

The reason I hesitate in agreeing to the sunset clause is that Amendment 181C calls for the report to be debated “before 31 May 2016”, whereas Amendment 181A would have the effect that Part 2 would expire “on 31 May 2016”. It is important that, if we have a review, it is a proper one. If there are things that need to be done, there should be an ample opportunity for Parliament to take steps and consider any amendments that are required. That would not necessarily give a proper opportunity for a full review and for Parliament to take any necessary legislative steps. The spirit is that there should be a review. It should be brought to Parliament. It is clear to all parties, regardless of who is in government after 2015, that the will to have a review and learn the lessons that any review might teach us is there. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who set the ball rolling in this, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

I hope this will be the last time that I will be on my feet in this Committee stage. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber for their contributions. It is important that we have had them. I also thank noble Lords for the good nature in which, debating pretty complex matters, our deliberations have proceeded. The Government have been listening and will reflect over the Recess on the matters that have been raised in your Lordships’ House.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I could remind my noble and learned friend of my other suggestion: that detailed conversations should be offered to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Berridge and others on this point.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If my noble friend had allowed me to finish the sentence that I had started when he intervened, I would have said that, having received it, those who wish to pursue this matter further in discussion with myself and my noble friend Lady Stowell—

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for moving the amendment. As he indicated, it is a probing amendment, and I hope that from both the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and what I am about to say that he will be reassured that there is good reason why clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales are identified separately in the Bill.

As my noble friend indicated, the amendment would make plain that no duty of the Roman Catholic clergy to marry couples is extended by the Bill to same-sex couples. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the position. In respect of this amendment, whatever his duties in the Catholic Church or under Roman Catholic canon law are, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church is under no legal duty according to English law to marry anyone. If a couple of some other faith, or who are for example simply not members of his congregation, come to him, he does not have to marry them.

However, there is a common-law duty to marry parishioners, which applies to the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. That duty arose because of the establishment of the Church of England and the previous establishment of the Church in Wales. The purpose of Clause 1(4) and (5) is to ensure that this duty does not extend to the marriage of same-sex couples.

However, given that no other religions are or have been established in England and Wales, no common-law duty arose in respect of the clergy of other religious organisations. It is therefore not necessary to have a provision in the Bill ensuring that such a duty is not extended to the marriage of same-sex couples. All other religious organisations are entirely free to decide whom they wish to marry according to their rites.

Therefore, Roman Catholic clergy, along with ministers of other religious organisations, are fully protected under Clause 2. The amendment would therefore achieve no change in the law but could produce confusion and doubt as to whether the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church might be under a legal duty to marry opposite-sex couples when, in fact, they are not.

I hope that that straightforward and simple explanation satisfies my noble friend. However, it has been important and worth while for him to have moved the amendment to provide an opportunity for that explanation to be given.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I have a number of Roman Catholic friends who have been somewhat concerned, and I am grateful that all this is now on the record. I am only too glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this was not a letter, it was a form of words that was agreed between Monsignor Stock and the Cabinet Office that I have placed on the record. There was a letter to me from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that enclosed a copy of a letter that indicated what I have just said. I do not believe that it is in my gift to say that it will be placed in the Library, but I reassure my noble friend that I have just used the words that were in that letter. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for his contribution to our debates, both today and on Report, and for what he did following Report in engaging further with Monsignor Stock and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Indeed, on Report the right reverend Prelate, in a speech that I believe was very helpful to the House, concluded that the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter,

“bears out the Government’s assurance that the Roman Catholic rules are not a block to the smooth functioning of the proposed succession rules”. —[Official Report, 13/3/13; col. 282.]

As I have stated both in Committee and on Report, we have a very clear signal that the overriding concern in Catholic pastoral guidance to couples in mixed marriages is the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. We have an equally clear signal from the Church of England, included in their briefing note to Members, that:

“The present prohibition … is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England”.

Again, I recognise the concern with which my noble friend moved his amendment. I reiterate that the requirement that the sovereign be a Protestant remains as solidly placed in law as ever. In this context, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this brief but, I think, important debate. I listened with particular care to the speech of the right reverend Prelate and, of course, to what my noble and learned friend said. I believe that we have gone some distance in our three debates. We now have certain statements on the record that I believe are helpful to those of us who have concerns but are in no sense anti-Roman Catholic. My noble friend Lord Deben knows that when he left the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic, I honoured him for that decision. A similar decision was made by Miss Ann Widdecombe. I myself agonised at that time although in the end, instead of joining the Roman Catholic Church, I found myself elected to the General Synod to take the place that my noble friend had vacated.

I believe very much in the importance of our established church. However I may die, whether as an Anglican or as a Roman Catholic, I hope that the Church of England will continue as the established church of England. It is because of that, and because our constitution, as has often been said, is like a beautifully constructed watch, in that if you take one little piece out the whole thing will fall apart, that I have expressed my concern in three brief debates. The last thing I wish to do is to cause offence to anyone, particularly Roman Catholics, as I hold the Roman Catholic Church in high regard and always have. I very cheerfully pray, as we do frequently in Anglican churches, for the Pope. I would have liked to have seen something in the Bill that made explicit what is implicit, but I understand the points that have been made, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Janvrin, Lord Fellowes and Lord Luce. Because I think that we have moved some distance, I will spare the House the exercise of going into the Division Lobbies.

On a final note, I hope that something can go into the Library of the House, as requested by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. When I concluded my speech at the end of Report, I expressed the hope that at a fairly high level there could be an exchange of letters, and I hope that that is still possible.

I thank my noble and learned friend for the concern and sympathy with which he has listened to the arguments advanced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this is an agreement that has been reached with the other Commonwealth countries. This question may arise in relation to later amendments, but the preamble to the Statute of Westminster Act 1931 gives an expectation that in matters of succession to the Crown there will be the engagement of the other realms of which the Queen is head of state. It is not a matter of binding law but it is certainly an expectation and one that we have considered to be very important in taking forward the proposals in this Bill. As I indicated, the implication or consequence of my noble friend’s amendment is that it would affect the succession, and we would need to consider that with the other realms of which the Queen is head of state.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short but fairly vigorous and interesting debate. I am particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Fellowes and Lord Kilclooney, and others. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, it is of course possible to be both an Anglican and a Methodist. The two churches are in communion, so there is no impediment there at all.

I am obviously grateful for the speech of my noble and learned friend the Minister and I shall bear in mind everything that he said. However, whatever is in this Bill, it remains in effect, in his words, discriminatory because there is an insistence that the heir to the Throne cannot be a Roman Catholic. I personally accept that and support it, as will have been apparent from my earlier remarks, but you cannot have it both ways. With this amendment, I was merely seeking to remove an element of ambiguity. I am particularly grateful for the excellent exposition of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, but he, too, ended his speech by saying that he would welcome the removal of ambiguity. He hoped that either in the Bill or in some other manner—perhaps in an exchange of letters or whatever—there could be some form of wording that would make it less ambiguous than it is at the moment. I am grateful to him for that because that is an extremely important point.

Obviously there are strong feelings in all parts of the House and around the country about this. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, who pledged his support, also said that he would reluctantly go into the Lobby. I will not make him reluctant tonight because I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. There is still scope for further discussion. I was delighted to hear from my noble and learned friend that Third Reading will not come until after the Easter Recess. That gives all of us with an interest in this and other matters relating to the Bill, such as my noble friend Lord True, plenty of opportunity to consult, discuss and then decide whether or not it would be prudent to table another amendment at Third Reading. I certainly have not made up my mind on that score.

I will not detain the House further by referring to every speech but there is the clear issue before us that we are dealing with the succession to the Crown. It has been decided that gender should be no impediment as far as the first born is concerned. It has been decided that marriage to a Roman Catholic, subject to the sovereign’s permission, can go ahead. It has also been reiterated by my noble and learned friend that anyone succeeding to the Crown cannot be a Roman Catholic. Although he introduced—as did my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames—references to other religions, that is not what we are concerned with in this Bill. We are concerned with what is explicitly in the Bill. I still believe that it would be helpful if we had some form of safeguard either in the Bill itself or in an exchange of published letters with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but we can all reflect on that over the coming weeks. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sure that if it was just that, it would be simpler. Certainly, the experience of reaching agreement was far more painstaking and more work was put into it than a simple exchange of e-mails. I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who participated in some of our earlier debates, worked in the previous Administration in No. 10 Downing Street, this was one of his responsibilities when the previous Prime Minister was seeking to get agreement. I know how much effort was put into getting the agreement at Perth, and subsequently into getting the agreement on this provision. It is not, therefore, as simple as an exchange of e-mails.

[Lord Cormack]

If we pass this amendment this evening, it will simply go to another place, which will give extended time for sounding out opinion in the rest of the Commonwealth realms. If a negative response to those soundings was received, we could of course think again, and the Commons might decide to reject the amendment. We are simply expressing this view of this House on a common-sense matter. I very much hope that we shall be able to do that.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it was both. It was to allow someone in the line of succession to the Throne to marry a Catholic and to remove that discrimination. I know that the noble Lord’s subsequent question would be, “Why don’t you remove the ultimate discrimination?”. However, as he acknowledged, from his own efforts to do something, this is a much more complex issue. He says that he does not wish to disestablish the Church of England. Many would argue that if we went down that road, it possibly would lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England. There is a proper debate to be had there, but this emphasises that that is not the purpose of this Bill. However, where an opportunity has arisen to remove at least one area of discrimination, it has properly been seized.

My noble friend Lord Deben made the point that, if this genuinely is an issue, it already exists in another context. My noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine raised the point at Second Reading which my noble friend Lord Deben made about Islam. My noble friend Lady Falkner asked whether the perceived,

“constraints on the children of Catholics being bought up—and the Catholic Church’s perspective on that—would be different if the monarch was married to a Muslim, as is currently permissible? Muslim children are, likewise, expected to be brought up in mixed marriages as Muslims. So the anomaly exists in the case of other faiths, but perhaps not in the case of Catholics”.—[Official Report, 14/2/13; col. 805.]

That was the point that my noble friend was making. Therefore, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack seeks to address one problem but does not extend to include every faith that currently exists. It is certainly not the Government’s plan that we should do so.

We will obviously return to this issue of establishment and whether the sovereign could be a Catholic in some of the later amendments. However, I readily appreciate the very human concerns. When you are dealing with affairs of state and issues of the constitution, you must remember that you are also talking about two people who want to get married. That is why it is appropriate that there is a pastoral dimension to this and that it is done at a pastoral level. I hope that, with these reassurances, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for his response, but not entirely convinced. We have had an interesting short debate. Some of the language used by my noble friend Lord Deben was reminiscent of the 18th century pamphlet at its best. He could be a little more careful about his use of the words “insulting” and “preposterous” merely because he does not happen to agree with the arguments advanced.

The fact is that many people in this country are concerned. Parliament has a duty to address this issue. Mentioning a foreign power in legislation is by no means unprecedented. However, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Fellowes; indeed, I made it obliquely myself in my introductory remarks when I said that I was not wedded to the words of the amendment. I wanted to have a debate on the subject. This we have had. I would be glad to talk to my noble friend Lord Fellowes and others before deciding whether to pursue this, which I may well do on Report. The issue deserves mature and thoughtful debate. It is of importance for we do not know how long. There may be no problem in the next century; there may be one within a very few years. One just does not know. However, when we are legislating in good faith for a long time—in spite of the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors; we can repeal whatever we like tomorrow—we have to do our best to make it as clear, precise and right as we possibly can. This is why my noble friend Lord True was wise to introduce his debate. We need to try to anticipate the sort of problems that may exist, if only to answer them and have them answered by Ministers and others before we move on to see the Bill on the statute book, which it assuredly will be before too much longer.

While expressing the hope of discussions with my noble and learned friend the Minister and others before Report stage, and reserving the right to introduce an amendment on Report—certainly not in the same words, but along similar lines—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

I would like to add a word. There is a real danger that we are treating exceptionally complex matters far too simplistically. The constitution of our country, which is not written, has often been compared to a beautifully constructed watch—take away one ostensibly tiny piece of the mechanism and the whole thing falls apart. Some fairly unpleasant things were said about my amendment earlier on, but there we are; that is the rough and tumble of debate. However, I really believe that those of us who are concerned about this issue—coming from slightly different points of view, I accept—are on to something that the Government have not bothered to think through. They have said, “Oh look, this is so complex that we’ll just concentrate on these things”, which is equivalent to saying, “This watch is beautifully constructed; we’ll just look at the hands in the face and forget the bit behind”. There is merit in the interesting suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—if I may have his attention for a moment—or at least in the Minister calling a meeting in his room for people who are concerned, and possibly in going forward to a special committee. This is not really the ideal forum for a detailed discussion of these exceptionally important and complex matters, which reach out we know not where.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I have already responded to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and indicated that I am not in a position on behalf of the Government to commit to establishing a committee to look at these matters. It is clear that there are committees of this House and indeed of the other place that could do so. Obviously the Government would contribute to any such committee that we had invited to do this, but I do not believe that that is a pathway that is inconsistent—nor did the noble Lord suggest this—with proceeding with the relatively straightforward, although constitutionally important, issues that are in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not necessarily accept that it is unconventional. If this Parliament had decided what it wished to do and dictated the matter to the other realms—that have legitimate interest in who is their head of state—it would not have been consistent with the notion of countries such as Australia and New Zealand being independent from the United Kingdom. It was always anticipated that if there were to be a change, agreement would be reached. However, as I said in an exchange during the first amendment with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, it was important that we sought to get agreement among all the realms and for the changes to be implemented as appropriate in each country. It would have been wrong if we had dictated what the terms should be. Considerable agreement was reached, which New Zealand was responsible for co-ordinating.

It is not as unprecedented as it sometimes sounds; we agree international treaties which Parliament is then asked to ratify. This is not exactly on the same lines but it is important to have that agreement. At the time, everyone seemed to think it was right to seek agreement and then to put the proposals before Parliament. This is a process which predates this Government and has been going on for some time.

[Lord Cormack]

Is my noble and learned friend saying that, because the Prime Minister has given that undertaking to international colleagues, we ratify this in every last particular? Or is he saying that we have the parliamentary process and therefore while we must adhere to the principles we can deal with the detail? There is a very big difference between the two, so which is it? Do we have the authority, as a House and as a Parliament, to alter the details, from six to 12 for instance, or do we not? If not, it is frankly an abuse of parliamentary procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Further to that and, in a sense, even more pertinent, if this Bill should pass Report stage in this House and the other place endorses the change of six to 12, is my noble friend saying that that would invalidate this international agreement? Does this Parliament have authority in this matter or not?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked about being informed. Obviously, developments are in train. I will try to give him and others who have contributed information as up to date as possible. With regard to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s question, if we were to make a substantive change, before any implementation could take place, we would have to ensure that there was agreement among all the realms. On a substantive matter such as the six to 12, it would not be a happy situation to have a disjunction between the realms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There is an agreement reached and it is up to each realm to implement the agreement. If that agreement is, somehow or another, not implemented in a realm, then we do not have the unanimity to permit commencement.

[Lord Cormack]

My noble and learned friend deserves a gold medal for patience and good, even temper. He is much admired for that, and I mean that very sincerely. Could he confirm that 13 March is, indeed, the date? Will he produce for us, before that date, a list of precisely what is required in each realm? There seems to be some disagreement: my noble friend Lord Northbrook referred to the necessity for referenda but my noble and learned friend seemed to think there was no necessity. It would be very helpful and conducive to good debate and discussion in this place if, on Report, we had a piece of paper which lists the countries, lists the process and gives the date where we are at the moment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise to my noble friend because I forgot about his point on that. The Future Business indeed indicates that Report will be on 13 March. I know that during these deliberations, I have indicated on more than one occasion a willingness to meet one or more of your Lordships. Someone from my private office is in the Box and will, no doubt, be noting that. I will certainly endeavour to ensure that purposeful meetings can take place and provide an opportunity for discussion in time for any amendments that noble Lords wish to table.

With regard to the list, I should say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the reason I perhaps hesitate to say how up to date we can get is that that is something I have been asking for. I understand that being bang up to date and complete is more challenging than it may seem. My officials have obviously heard this debate, and I assure the House that we will make the position as up to date as we can.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I shall come on to explain, it is very much part of the Edinburgh agreement. The Electoral Commission is crucially and centrally involved in the oversight of this referendum.

[Lord Cormack]

I am most grateful to the Minister. According to the agreement, all the commission has to determine is whether the question is intelligible. It is not a matter of whether it is fair, or loaded, but whether it is understandable. Is that sufficient?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the position is that the Referendum Question Assessment Guidelines published by the Electoral Commission in November 2009 set out its approach to reviewing questions for intelligibility. These guidelines state:

“A referendum question should present the options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should: be easy to understand; be to the point; be unambiguous; avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another; avoid misleading voters”.

That is the Electoral Commission’s guidance to the intelligibility question which my noble friend raised; those are the criteria I expect it to apply having regard to weighing up and assessing the question that has been submitted by the Scottish Government to the Electoral Commission. With regard to this question, we have sought to put the position of the role of the Electoral Commission and the role of the Scottish Parliament on exactly the same terms as would be the case if the United Kingdom Government were proposing a referendum, where we put the referendum to the Electoral Commission for its assessment on the same criteria. I will come on to that in a bit more detail in a moment. It will report to Parliament and ultimately Parliament will decide. We are seeking to put the Scottish Parliament in exactly the same position, vis-à-vis the question and the Electoral Commission, as the United Kingdom Parliament would be in any referendum which the United Kingdom Government were proposing.

Constitutional Settlement

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 11th October 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart on bringing forward this Motion, and I thank all who have contributed to what has been both a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. My noble friend’s long-standing interest in constitutional matters is well known. I counted it a privilege to serve on the committee that he co-chaired with the late Robin Cook in 1996. It is fair to say that these so-called Cook-Maclennan talks helped smooth the way to many of the very substantial constitutional reforms that took place in the first years of the Labour Government after 1997, which saw a much needed modernisation of our constitution.

There are two themes to the Motion before this House this afternoon: first, what the Motion refers to as the,

“potential break-up of the United Kingdom”;

secondly, the further consideration of alternative constitutional settlements. At the outset, I assure noble Lords that the Government believe passionately in the United Kingdom and are committed to devolution within the United Kingdom. We do not anticipate the break-up of the United Kingdom, nor are we planning for such a contingency. However, as was echoed by my noble friends Lord Maclennan and Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, we are in no way complacent. Rather, we see a vibrant and strong United Kingdom with its constitutional arrangements such as devolution thriving and developing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out—as indeed he has done in previous debates on Scottish matters—if there is unanimous support for the future of the United Kingdom it is because the Scottish National Party has chosen not to send Members to your Lordships’ House. I certainly note that point and I think our debates are the poorer because we do not have that particular perspective.

In the context of the forthcoming referendum on Scotland’s future, it is important to distinguish between independence as a country separate from the United Kingdom, and devolution within the United Kingdom. These are two fundamentally different issues and we should not see independence as a logical extension of devolution. Devolution would come to an end if Scotland left the United Kingdom, which is why we need to settle the independence question by a referendum, as an entirely separate matter from the devolution settlement. The devolution settlement will continue its evolution now, in the months ahead and after the referendum.

The view of the Government is that the people of Scotland deserve a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive, and that aim is best achieved with a referendum that poses a single, clear question. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the third question. One reason we do not believe that a third question is right is that devolution is a different issue from independence—quite apart from the fact that no one has yet come up with a definition of devo-max or devo-plus. People would be invited to vote for something that had no shape or form to it.

I can confirm that further substantial progress towards agreement on the terms of a Section 30 order to facilitate a referendum was reached on Tuesday between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. No agreement has been finalised and officials have now been tasked with doing further work on the details of the agreement.

My noble friend Lord Cormack raised what I accept is an important issue with regard to 16 and 17 year-olds. The United Kingdom Government have no plans to lower the voting age for elections. I do not accept that there is an inevitability about it. The United Kingdom Government’s position has always been that any reform of the franchise ought to be agreed by consensus across all United Kingdom elections and not for a single election. However, if we were to agree to a transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, as has happened in other referendums, it is the Bill enacting the referendum that determines the franchise. There is no proposal coming from this coalition Government to change the franchise for UK elections or Scottish elections in the lifetime of this Parliament. If the concern is that there will be an absence of debate, I do not think that is a real one. If it is going to be done in another Parliament, I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for debate.

[Lord Cormack]

It really is very difficult to buy what my noble and learned friend says. The United Kingdom Parliament has the power to ensure that any referendum in Scotland is fought on the basis of the existing franchise. Can he not see that to allow this change in through the back door would fundamentally alter the whole balance of our constitution as far as the franchise is concerned?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I do not accept that that would be an automatic consequence. Before any change to the franchise for the House of Commons, or indeed for the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, there would have to be full, proper debate and consideration, and it would require legislation in this Chamber. I do not think for one moment that my noble friend suggests that the House of Commons will suddenly roll over and vote for votes at 16. Apart from anything else, it will certainly not be at the hand of the Government, although they will have no opportunity to do so in the lifetime of this Parliament.

As I have indicated, the Government believe in the United Kingdom. We believe that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, as was said by more than contributor to this debate. Our shared history during the past 300 years has been as a stable, successful, political, economic and cultural union. That has benefited our citizens, our economy and our place in the world. It is a unique constitutional achievement and one of the great success stories. It was striking that, in their contributions to the debate, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reflected on their own Scottish ancestry. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated that, within his own family, the benefits of being part of a United Kingdom are manifest. Having looked up the origin in Scotland of the name Wallace, I found that it undoubtedly came from Shropshire or Wales in the 12th or 13th century, so it is clear that there has been movement of peoples in these islands for centuries. Geography is probably one thing that binds us more than anything else. Common sense says that we should not split up what has been successfully brought together.

Perhaps I may paraphrase the excellent case made for our United Kingdom in the report by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood—the so-called Steel Commission report. That talked about nations which had been in conflict for hundreds of years, which were brought together and which together were able to exert a global influence. Our concepts of liberty, democracy and the rule of law, our philosophy and our ideas, have done much to shape the modern world.

Within our United Kingdom, Scots have made an important contribution—in science and engineering, medicine, administration, economics, finance and philosophy— and we have done so as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s success. In unity and co-operation with the other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland has been able to punch above its weight as a small country and, in doing so, we have helped to build a United Kingdom which is more effective together than its combined resources would merit.

We benefit from being part of a strong United Kingdom and I believe that the United Kingdom benefits from having Scotland as a constituent member. Our experience together in the past 300 years has created a number of key British institutions which are part of a shared national identity: the BBC, the British Army, the Navy, the Royal Air Force, the Crown, the National Health Service and, indeed, this very Parliament. It is the strength of these institutions which will help influence people in Scotland when they cast their votes in the forthcoming referendum.

The Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House of Commons on 20 June the work that the UK Government will do to highlight the benefits of the United Kingdom. I have detected—and it has been mentioned in some of our debates previously—an appetite for some objective and reliable information on the issues. It is right that the Government should provide facts ahead of the referendum and I welcome the fact that many other bodies now want to contribute objective information. That analysis can inform and support a debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom.

Part of that future, and part of our immediate past, has been devolution. We have demonstrated a strong commitment to devolution, as it gives people choice and a real say over their own affairs. It is consistent with the decentralisation of power which is a core aim of this Government in line with our belief that there are benefits in making decisions at local level. We have an active devolution agenda. There is no status quo to defend because the devolution settlement, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, pointed out, has continually evolved from day one. He will remember, when he and I were in government together in Scotland, the devolution of the railways under a Section 30 order and the fact that we were able then to take forward some important new railway building and construction in Scotland. That settlement continues to evolve.

Most recently, the Scotland Act 2012 was passed, representing the most significant development in devolution since 1998. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I cannot accept that it is a ragbag of measures. First and foremost the measures that changed the devolution settlement in terms of powers were the product of a very detailed consideration by the Calman commission. The fact that it did not amount to a great number of powers is a testament to the settlement of the 1998 Act and the work that was done then. But it also included, very significantly, a substantial transfer of financial powers. That addressed a very important principle of the accountability of the Scottish Parliament, which hitherto has had total discretion on how it spends money but precious little responsibility or accountability in how it raises money.

Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I give the noble Lord the absolute assurance that our objective throughout has been to achieve a referendum which is fair, decisive and legal. As the noble Lord said, it should be a referendum where, at the end of the day and when the votes are counted, no one can claim foul play. I underline to the House the importance which we attach, and which I think the Scottish Government now attach, to the Electoral Commission having a very important part to play in the conduct of any referendum.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

David Livingstone Bicentenary

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am glad that there seems to be such consensus across the Chamber on this. I reiterate the point that there are many positive aspects to the life, career and work of David Livingstone. I think that his bicentenary will give us all an opportunity across the United Kingdom—and, indeed, in Africa too—to reflect on these issues and to take from them what is really good, and to build on them.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, as it is important that our young people should be aware of the achievements of this very great man, should we not ask Mr Wiggins to cycle round the United Kingdom next year proclaiming David Livingstone’s virtues? Does this not give us an opportunity to congratulate Mr Wiggins on his recent triumph?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his ingenuity in mentioning Mr Wiggins. He said it, but I am sure that I speak for the whole House in extending our warmest congratulations on an astounding sporting achievement.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long, because the next business before the House—

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—not just for their contributions to the debate on the Floor of your Lordships’ Chamber today but for all their comments and amendments, which have reflected a view to try to find a way forward. As I indicated originally at Second Reading, and certainly in Committee, the Government were willing to listen to the views of your Lordships’ House. In the debate on Second Reading, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who mentioned that you could have absolutely rigid fixed terms or the complete flexibility that we have at the moment. The rigid fixed term brings its own set of difficulties, but if you are going to have something less rigid, you have to have the mechanisms in place to provide for an early election. That is what we grappled with during our deliberations in Committee and has been reflected in our debate today.

Amendment 20 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, with the support of the noble Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It sets out an alternative version of Clause 2 and addresses a number of issues of concern, not least the Speaker’s certificate and the certainty of the wording of a Motion of no confidence, both of which were raised in Committee. I am particularly grateful for the constructive way forward that has been devised by those who I know do not like the idea of fixed-term Parliaments but who nevertheless have accepted that the role of this House is to improve and revise and to bring forward amendments in that spirit. I was pleased to be able to consult not only the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Pannick, but particularly with the two former Speakers. This House has had the advantage of having their experience related to us both in Committee and in the debate this afternoon. On that basis, I have been willing to add my name in support of the amendment on behalf of the Government.

The amendment would retain the two triggers for an early general election and has clarified what a Motion of no confidence should say, and in that regard would not require a Speaker’s certificate. There was also a suggestion in an earlier iteration of the amendment that perhaps there should be some reference to the journal. Having considered it, we did not think that was appropriate either because it might then reflect other things in the journal that would be somewhat undermined by making it specific in this one. I think that that consultation bore fruit. We certainly have no desire to draw the Speaker of the House of Commons into political controversy, and therefore, given that the architecture for an early election is drawn up with a degree of certainty with no need of a Speaker’s certificate, the Government are willing to support the amendment.

I will come back to the amendments to this amendment that were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because they raise issues that were raised by other noble Lords, but first it is important that I should address the points made by noble Lords in speaking to their amendments in the group.

Amendment 21, tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton, again would provide an alternative version of Clause 2 and retains some of the basic architecture. It sets out a mechanism to allow for an early general election in the event of a two-thirds majority on a Motion, and one to provide for an early election in the event that the Government lose the confidence of the other place and no Government who hold the confidence of the House are formed within 14 days. Having listened to the concerns expressed in this House, it is clear that there is a certain shared sense of the direction in which we have been moving. However, my noble friend seeks to provide that the failure to pass a Motion of confidence in the Government—an important distinction—should have the same effect as passing a Motion of no confidence.

Following on the specific points made about this in the Constitution Committee’s report, we certainly did reflect on this long and hard. The reason why we came down against it in the end has been anticipated by my noble friend. It is that one of the objectives is to try to minimise the opportunity for manipulation. I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has indicated the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted, that there is no way this is going to be foolproof, but there are some things you can do to make it more difficult. We have reached the judgment that a Motion of confidence would be easier for the Government of the day to table and then have voted down than for the Government to lose a Motion of no confidence. The noble Baroness also mentioned Germany in 2005. The position there was that there was a general consensus for an election but that they did not have a trigger mechanism to do so. However, we do provide for it where there is consensus for a Dissolution that is supported by a two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament.

My noble friend Lord Norton wishes to add a third mechanism leading to an early general election. Where a Prime Minister felt unable to continue in government, his or her resignation could bring about an early election. The Bill does not prevent a Prime Minister from resigning or tendering a resignation on behalf of the Government, but, under the Bill as it stands, an early election would not follow automatically. As I have indicated, should there be a consensus that an early election should take place, the Bill provides for this under a two-thirds Dissolution vote. However, if there is no consensus, the alternative provision—for a no-confidence vote followed by a period of 14 days’ government formation—prevents a situation in which a Government stagger on without the confidence of the House.

My noble friend has suggested a government formation period of 60 days following the Prime Minister tendering the resignation of the Government. That could undermine the principle of fixed-term Parliaments by allowing the Prime Minister to trigger the government formation period at any stage in the Parliament. If one is looking at ways of minimising the opportunity for manipulation, that is one reason why we would not wish to go down that road. I also believe that 60 days is too long a period for there to be no effective Government in place. I hope that on reflection my noble friend will not—I think he indicated that he had some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—press his amendment.

The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack and supported by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom is a further variation that suggests the exact wording of the Dissolution Motion and frames the 14-day government formation period in a different way from that proposed in the Bill. It provides for two scenarios that would determine a Motion of no confidence. Where a no-confidence Motion is passed in those circumstances, the Prime Minister must request Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament.

There may be circumstances in which, within a fixed-term period, a viable, legitimate Government may be formed from the composition of the House after a no-confidence Motion. As my noble friend Lord Tyler reminded us, it is Parliament that is fixed; it is not the Government who are intended to be fixed by the legislation. The Government can exist only if they enjoy the confidence of the other place. That is why Clause 2 provides for a vote of no confidence to trigger a period of 14 days for possible government formation. If the Government have not been able to secure the confidence of the House of Commons, Parliament will be dissolved. At present, the Prime Minister decides whether, after the loss of confidence, to ask Her Majesty for Dissolution, as in 1979, or, as my noble friend Lord Norton pointed out, to resign, thereby creating the opportunity for another Government to be formed from the existing House, as in 1924.

[Lord Cormack]

I know that the Minister is trying very hard, but some of us remain very concerned about this 14-day haggle period, as I would call it. Would he be prepared to insert at Third Reading, “a maximum of 14 days”?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not sure that it is necessary to insert “maximum”. Perhaps I can assure my noble friend that 14 days is a limit; it is not an expectation or a requirement. Let us take as an example the situation in 1979, after Mr James Callaghan was defeated on that famous evening in March. If, rather than saying, under existing constitutional arrangements, that he was going to the Queen to seek Dissolution and take his case to the country, he had said that he would table a Motion for Dissolution the following day and that if it was supported, as inevitably it would have been, by both parties and had two-thirds of Members voting for it, there would have been no need to wait for 14 days before the election took place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, looks perplexed by that. Mr Callaghan could have tabled a Motion for Dissolution the following day and two-thirds of Members could have agreed.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am trying to address the arguments advanced by a number of noble Lords and will certainly come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He asked what was wrong with the position in 1979. Under our constitution as it then was and as it stands today, the Prime Minister followed a course of action which was constitutionally acceptable. We are looking at a situation where that would not be the framework within which the Prime Minister was acting—he would be acting within the framework of a Parliament elected for a fixed term. The then Prime Minister had the choice of whether to resign or immediately call a general election. He chose to seek a Dissolution. Resigning would not be possible under the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. What we are seeking to do is take away the power of the Prime Minister to call an election. I think my noble friend was trying to get in earlier—

[Lord Cormack]

Yes I was. I am most grateful to my noble friend, who is the most conciliatory of men—but. The two devices of the 14 days and the two-thirds majority are in this Bill to protect whoever is the Prime Minister and whoever are the Executive, and there can be no getting away from that. Surely, allowing a Prime Minister, having lost the confidence of the House of Commons, 14 days, or allowing two-thirds of its elected Members—not two-thirds who are necessarily there at the time—to vote for a Dissolution, is a protective device and one that gives time for the powers that be, the Whips Office and elsewhere, to work on Members. It will make for a thoroughly undignified situation, and it will only add power to the Executive and take it away from Parliament, where it rightly belongs.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend Lord Lamont has also been trying to get in. If he wishes to ask a question, I shall deal with it and then press on.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We debated this under Amendments 35 and 39. I said then and as part of our general debates that, in my understanding, if the Prime Minister resigned—nothing in the Bill stops the Prime Minister resigning in those circumstances—the Queen would invite another Member of Parliament to form a Government. If that other Member of Parliament tried to form a Government but there was a motion of no confidence in that Government, there would be an election. Alternatively, the Prime Minister may have resigned and it may be evident to everyone that there is stalemate and that the sensible thing—with agreement across all parties—is to have an election. In that case, two-thirds of Members could vote for an early Dissolution.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have gone down that path many times and have indicated that we intended this should be a first-term Bill. I have made it very clear on a number of occasions when this has been raised that we believed it was important that at a very early point in this Parliament we should establish that it would run to a particular fixed date, and that we wanted to ensure the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. However, no one can say that there has not been ample opportunity, in the length of time which I described in responding to an earlier amendment, for both Houses to have plenty of opportunity to look at a relatively short Bill.

[Lord Cormack]

My noble and learned friend talked about the scrutiny committee of both Houses. Can he give an absolute assurance that on that committee there will be Members who do not believe in a fully or partially elected House so that it can reflect the wide range of opinions in both Houses of Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am in no way trying to dismiss the suggestion that my noble friend makes. I am not in a position to indicate how that committee will be established. No doubt there will be nomination procedures from both Houses. I suspect that it would be rather odd if a contrary view or two was not expressed on it, but I am not in a position to indicate that ahead of the Bill being published. I assure the Committee that the timings of elections to the reformed second Chamber has been considered carefully by the Government and the proposals will be in the draft Bill.

I certainly take my noble friend’s point that, having spent most of the time on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill listening to the Opposition saying that the Bill should be split, it is somewhat intriguing then to be told that not only should it be split but that two other Bills should be added on to it. I do not think that the experience of the CRAG Bill in the previous Parliament, where numerous constitutional principles were put together under the one heading of a constitutional reform Bill, was necessarily the most satisfactory experience.

The noble Baroness mentioned entrenching the election date for one House while the other was pending. At least it will be known when this Bill has got on to the statute book what Parliament has agreed with regard to a fixed-term election. If this Bill had not come forward and we did not have fixed-term Parliaments, an election to the other place could have happened at any time. The potential for some of the confusion and concerns to which the noble Baroness referred would have been multiplied many times over if it was proposed that this House should have a fixed term while the other place could have elections as and when the Prime Minister of the day thought best to call them. Therefore, when the Joint Committee of both Houses considers the draft Bill, it will do so in the knowledge of what Parliament has passed in the context of fixed-term Parliaments. This Bill deals with dates of the general election to the other place. These should be set before we consider the dates of elections to the reformed second Chamber. There will be ample opportunity to discuss elections to this Chamber when the Bill is published in draft form and, I suspect, plenty of further opportunities to discuss it when the reality of the Bill comes before the other place and your Lordships' House. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think that a referendum would be appropriate in those circumstances, not least because people go to the polls on 5 May, which is about six weeks away, and we could not hold a referendum in that time. It is important that people know the term of office of those they elect on 5 May. That is why we wish to bring forward that amendment in Committee. We await the outcome from the Welsh Assembly.

Northern Ireland Office Ministers are conducting separate discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland on this issue and have concluded that it would be better to await the outcome of the combined polls scheduled for May 2011 before taking a decision on whether special provision will be needed for Northern Ireland.

For the reasons I have outlined, and in the light of the fact that we have been working not only with the parties but with presiding officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I hope that the concerns that legitimately motivated these amendments have been addressed, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, never has a probing amendment produced more in the way of disturbing information from my noble and learned friend. Anyone who knows him likes him. He is an extremely agreeable man who was rightly very popular in the other place and is clearly popular in your Lordships' House, but if ever there was an illustration of the maxim of my late father that you should think before you do anything, it is the response that we have just heard. We are now going to have discussions in Scotland to see what the implications will be.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There are no discussions about what the date will be for what will no longer be the 2015 election. We have said that in the longer term there ought to be discussions to avoid a recurrence of the clash. We are not at the moment prepared to put the Scottish Parliament on to a permanent fixed five-year term. It is about the longer term that there will be discussions, but I make it clear that they will not be with regard to the date for the election that would otherwise have been on 7 May 2015. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that is something that should not be rushed into and that it is proper that there is consultation.

[Lord Cormack]

Yes, of course, but I respectfully say that there should have been consultation before we got into this mess. As I listened, I could not help but remember a quotation from WH Auden, writing just before the last war, who said that every great drama has two acts. In the first, the mistake is made, and in the second people discover that they have made a mistake. I could not help but think that there is a lot of that here. If only there had been consultation with the devolved institutions first. Then there could have been a proper working out of the most sensible date on which to have these various elections. However, the probing amendment has worked to some degree, and in the spirit of conciliatory unity which is so prevalent in the House today—I am delighted by that—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If this Bill becomes law and there is a five-year Parliament, the Government of the day can expect to be there for five years and therefore can plan their programme over a five-year period. They need not necessarily frontload the parliamentary programme. It may allow more opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, which is regularly being encouraged. That is a difficult issue in the first year of a Parliament when Governments clearly want to move on and do some of the things they were elected on. But if they know that there is a five-year fixed-term Parliament, there is a better opportunity to programme it.

If it was a four-year Parliament, the final-year problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, would kick in in the fourth year, with people going back to their constituencies because they knew an election was looming. Therefore, the effective period of a Government’s programme would be much reduced. If you have a five-year period it will be possible for a Government to plan that programme over five years. We are talking about annual Sessions beginning in May. At the moment the final Session tends to start in late November and has to wind up in late March. I do not think any of us who saw the wash-up last March found it a particularly edifying experience. One would hope that if a Government knew that the final Session was starting in May and going through to a solution the following late March, that would allow for a much better programme in the final year and avoid the consequences of wash-up.

[Lord Cormack]

If the virtue of five years is to give more time to plan, and I accept the logic of that, why have we not had better planning in the first year of this Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have indicated that we will move towards a May Queen’s Speech. There is a legislative programme and I do not think the number of Bills in this first Session matches the numbers in some of the first Sessions of the previous Administration. This Bill is not yet on the statute book but if it is passed, I believe that we will see a much more orderly planned programme than I have seen since I came into this House, certainly in the final Session.