Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Davidson of Glen Clova and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

Oh, yes, he is. I hear observations that I am mischaracterising him, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will be able to look after himself in due course. If he is suggesting that I am proposing that the House of Lords should never do anything that would go against the other place, then that is an entirely incorrect assessment of what I am saying. What I am trying to get across is a recognition that we are dealing here with something that is very much sui generis. This is terrain in which we have not normally been operating. This is an area of legislation which goes well beyond the situation that underlies the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is basically saying that, albeit various people, not least the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, have said that Clause 2 does not actually deliver the Smith commission, the Labour Party is prepared to live with the situation whereby the Smith commission proposals are not delivered, for some political imperative. I am not quite sure what that political imperative is. If it is a question of time, ping-pong would not take weeks. It is still perfectly possible to get the Bill delivered by the Easter Recess. I am not quite sure what that political imperative is, particularly if it is not going to deliver what, up until now, we thought the Labour Party wanted to deliver.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

The noble and learned Lord wants to know whether I am correct in identifying a political imperative. These are matters of judgment and in judgment, one can be right and one can be wrong as matters go by. There is an assessment made in this judgment and when one makes a judgment and comes to a particular conclusion, if that conclusion is one that one wishes to live with and follow through, well, one does that. I think that that is something that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, because he has spent many years in politics and has had to realise that these political judgments have to be made. These political judgments can sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong, but this is the judgment that we have made. It would be most unfortunate, on this of all areas, were this to involve tension, difficulty, a contest, friction between this House and the other place. On this point, therefore, we adhere to the position we have thus far asserted.

Let me make another point. Clause 2 states:

“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.

That is language that is, at least, redolent of what a convention might be. It is the type of language that has been seen in the past in legislation in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—it is not a complete innovation. It is language that can be understood, and understood by courts. However, the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for example, states:

“But the Parliament of the United Kingdom may not pass any measure applying to Scotland that makes provision about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.

We have heard much in this House on the extent of this Parliament’s sovereignty. Might it not possibly be seen—I would be very interested to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on this—that this language, saying what the Parliament of the United Kingdom may and may not do, is itself an attempt to trench on the sovereignty of the UK Parliament? Therefore, if one is going to find tremendous support for such an amendment, one has to be conscious of what one is doing constitutionally, because this would appear to be another innovation.

The Opposition are not against innovation. Some innovations can be good, some innovations can be bad; people adopt positions here and there depending on their assessment of those various innovations. However, this innovation is one we are disinclined to immediately jump into and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

The suggestion that I am waffling is one that I do not find wholly offensive.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and learned Lord asked whether he had dealt with all the issues. He has not dealt with the issue, raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and by my noble friend Lord Stephen, of the importance we attach to having some subsection in here which would make the matters non-justiciable. We would welcome the view on that of my predecessor as Advocate-General for Scotland.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

I shall finish answering the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, before I come to the interesting point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. I thank him for the name check.

The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, wanted to know what I was getting at, what my point was and why I was waffling, to use his word. I am trying to deal with various issues that seem to trouble many noble Lords and many noble and learned Lords. The point I am trying to make—the simple nub—which he will readily understand, is that we perceive, and our judgment is, that the political imperative suggests that these amendments be not passed in this House. It is as simple as that.

To deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, about whether the matter may be looked at from the point of view of the purely legal analysis, in looking at this clause now—we have not always looked at it this way—we see that there is considerable virtue in having the support of the Minister’s statement on how this clause will be perceived by this House, and why this House is putting it forward in these terms. That statement by the Minister will, of course, feature were this matter to come before the courts, where it would be of some consequence in how the court would decide whether this language suggested that the issue was justiciable. I hope that offers a measure of response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, to pick up the noble and learned Lord on that point, I think he is suggesting that a Pepper v Hart statement by the present Advocate-General would put the matter beyond doubt if it came before the courts. But surely the point is that we do not want it to come to the courts at all because that is when uncertainty comes in. Very important matters, such as people’s investment decisions, may be involved and they will not know the outcome until the courts have decided the matter. Our measure, which has stood the test of time since the Parliament Act 1911, would mean that the issue would never come to the courts at all, because, if it does, the genie is out of the bottle.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

I feel that genies should not come out of their bottles; they should probably stay in their lamps. However, the point here is that, when one looks at this clause, no matter how one seeks to alter it, there is the potential—such are the fertile minds of our legal colleagues—to find one way or another in which any issue can be brought into court. My noble and learned friend the Advocate-General for Scotland, his predecessor and even his predecessor have frequently had to deal with issues by saying at no stage was this ever intended to go before a court, and yet we found that it did come before the courts, and in those areas the court had to make a decision whether it was a matter that was before the court or not. This is just the way our constitutional arrangements work. That has stood the test of time and it enables the finest minds of the Supreme Court to consider these types of issue. At this point, I will perhaps draw to a close, but if—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Perhaps I can help the noble and learned Lord because his Whips’ Office told my party’s Whips’ Office that is exactly what happened. They have been told by the other end not to support any amendment, however sensible, which would lead to a situation that could result in ping-pong.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

As every Member of this House—every noble Lord, every noble Baroness—who has spent any time in the other place and has been involved in the political toings and froings will know, what is said between Whips of different parties is normally regarded as confidential. Therefore, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, may have an observation that somebody has told him, that is simply a matter for his Whip, I guess. I will try to sit down now unless anyone—

Scotland: Constitutional Future

Debate between Lord Davidson of Glen Clova and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement and add my gratitude for its notice. I trust that this will be a precedent for future practice.

The Statement is welcome, clear and, up to a point, informative. It opens discussion of what for too long has been either ignored or suppressed—namely, the legality of the Scottish Government’s proposals for a referendum. It should also have the benefit of obliging the Scottish Government to engage in open discussion on this important constitutional issue. It appears already to be succeeding at least in getting the First Minister to say that he will reveal within days his constitutional plans, which people have been asking him to reveal for quite some time. There is no doubt that the referendum will take place and what we must now do in all parties is work together to ensure that it is fair, legal and commands the respect of people in Scotland.

The democratic rights of people resident in Scotland have recently been prayed in aid by the Deputy First Minister. Democratic rights throughout the UK of course rest on the rule of law. That such an important issue be dealt with in a clear and lawful manner is something that all interested in democracy have a right to expect. The legal position should surely have been clear to all for some time but this has apparently not been accepted in certain quarters. On such an issue, frank and open discussion is the lifeblood of democracy. Secrecy and obfuscation may be clever gamesmanship, but they help no one, least of all the Scottish electorate, to understand complex constitutional issues.

The Government are to be congratulated on expressing their legal understanding openly and clearly, and we wait to see whether that openness is reciprocated by the Scottish Government. What, it may be asked, is the position of the Scottish Government on the legality of the Scottish Parliament proposing a referendum? There have been curious twists and turns as to how a referendum might be likened to an opinion poll and somehow have nothing to do with the constitution. That has been recognised as obvious nonsense.

The Scottish Government have a duty to make clear their position in relation to the legality of their own referendum, opinion poll or whatever. Anything less leaves them open to accusations of dissembling and trickery. The Government have made clear the view of UK law officers on this issue. Surely we are now entitled to know the view of Scottish law officers. If there were any genuine dispute, the issue might be taken to the Supreme Court for resolution. If there is no such genuine dispute, we can all get on with discussing, in a mature and less rancorous manner, how the referendum is to be organised for the benefit of all concerned.

I have five questions for the noble and learned Lord. First, if the Scottish Government produce contrary legal advice regarding the legality of the referendum, will the Government take the issue to the Supreme Court?

Secondly, Her Majesty's Government propose a Section 30 process to devolve powers for a referendum as their preferred option. But that, as with a Legislative Consent Motion, might give the Scottish Parliament a veto. Are the Government not anxious to avoid any such veto and has that been considered? Thirdly, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the First Minister says that he wishes to extend the franchise for his referendum—but only that—to 16 and 17 year-olds. Will the proposed consultation look at this issue and at whether only those resident in Scotland may vote?

Fourthly, the time limit within which the referendum was to be held appears to have been dropped. This seemed important. The Prime Minister said on Sunday that 18 months was to be the time limit, but during the week that appears to have been departed from. Why was that?

Finally, on the consultation itself, it surely has to be done properly rather than quickly. Eight weeks seems to be a somewhat abbreviated period for consultation on such an important issue. Why was that period chosen? As the Minister knows well, Calman provided a good model for consultation. Will Her Majesty's Government follow that model?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his welcome of this consultation. I share many of the views that he expressed, not least that any Government of any Parliament on any mandate must operate within the rule of law. That is one of the fundamentals of our democracy. Clearly, too, simply having a straw poll on the day of someone's choosing would not amount to what we understand properly to be a referendum. That is why the Government take the view that any proper referendum is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That is why we have set out our view on how we might move forward.

I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would be in everyone's interests, particularly in Scotland but also in the wider United Kingdom, if these matters could now progress, in his words, “in a mature and less rancorous way”. That is certainly our hope and our intention by publishing this consultation.

The noble and learned Lord asked whether, if the Scottish Government produce conflicting legal advice, it would be referred to the Supreme Court. As he knows, the reference to the Supreme Court would fall on any legislation. The whole purpose of this consultation is to try to avoid that situation so that any legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament is within the competence of the Parliament because provision will have been made for it. That is the way of progressing in a mature and less rancorous way. It is in everyone's interest to avoid any legal uncertainty. In White Papers that were produced during the previous term, the Scottish Government themselves recognised that there was some uncertainty. What we are proposing in the consultation with our preferred Section 30 order is a way of ending that legal uncertainty.

The noble and learned Lord asked whether we had considered the possibility that the Scottish Parliament could veto our Section 30 order. That is obviously the case. A Section 30 order must be passed by both Houses of this Parliament and by the Scottish Parliament before being presented to Her Majesty in Council. Clearly, there would be an opportunity for that not to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. However, the whole point of having the consultation and of engaging not just with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament but with wider interests in Scotland is to try to avoid that situation, so that if a Section 30 order is brought forward it is one that can command consent and support.

With regard to the franchise, the noble and learned Lord will note that in the consultation document a question is raised about the franchise. It has been suggested by the First Minister that 16 and 17 year-olds may vote. The view of the Government is that the preferred franchise for the referendum is the one that we currently use to elect the Scottish Parliament. It seems perfectly reasonable, if that is the franchise to elect the Scottish Parliament, that it should be the franchise used for a referendum. Obviously, there are wider issues about whether 16 and 17 year-olds should have the vote. No doubt they will be properly debated in time, but it is not a matter to be debated in the context of this referendum. We asked the question but our view is that the franchise for the Scottish parliamentary elections makes the best franchise for a referendum.

With regard to time, the Government have always said that the referendum should happen sooner rather than later. If the Scottish Government work with us during the consultation process and we go down the route of the Section 30 order, it is possible that these powers can be used to deliver a legal referendum sooner rather than later. But this is a consultation and we are seeking the views of people about how best to deliver a legal, fair and decisive referendum, including when the referendum should take place.

Finally, it is explained in the eight-week consultation document that it is eight weeks because while our preferred option would certainly be to use a Section 30 order there is also the possibility of using primary legislation. The obvious vehicle for primary legislation is the Scotland Bill currently before your Lordships’ House. The House will recognise that there are time constraints on that, but we think that the issues here are very clear. It is not as if the points brought together in the consultation document are ones that nobody has been discussing, although the Scottish Government have perhaps not contributed too much until now. If they are about to produce their own response to this, that is a good outcome already from the consultation document. I think that the issues are clear and one would hope that we could get a wide range of Scottish opinion within the eight weeks and still allow the opportunity, if that should be the case, for the Scotland Bill to be used.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Davidson of Glen Clova and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 9th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

That is certainly an ambition that I would applaud. It is the execution with which I perhaps have a degree of concern. When one has seen what has been done with the Explanatory Memorandum, even a short guide for the increase of understanding by ordinary lay people would help. It is a matter on which we will never know the answer, I suspect.

In conclusion, despite the points that I have made in relation to the matter so far, I welcome the useful changes that have been produced by the order, which should enable a more rational, modernised election process in Scotland.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, notwithstanding some of their criticisms about the technical details and some of the content of the order. Nevertheless, they have welcomed the generality of the order and indicated their support for it. I shall try to deal with a number of the important, serious and constructive points that have been made, which merit a response. First, I will deal with perhaps the politically more controversial part—the elections being held on the same day as the proposed date of the referendum on the voting system to be used for the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, indicated that Mr Ron Gould, in his submission to a Select Committee in the other place, had made comments on this; and I accept that he expressed a preference for separate dates. However, it is important to put on the record that he said:

“The marking of yes or no on a referendum ballot is much easier to understand and carry out than the requirements of marking an STV ballot”,

which, of course, was the other ballot paper that voters had to fill in for the election in 2007. He went on to say that there were benefits to combination with reduced and higher turnout. He specifically said,

“I do not believe that the same factors which led to voter confusion and the large number of rejected ballots at the last Scottish Parliamentary and Municipal elections would arise if both the Parliamentary Election and the Referendum were held on the same date”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that I walked into any trap; I acknowledged that Mr Gould had said that he would prefer a separate date.

I ask the noble Lord to reflect that the first election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 was held just a matter of weeks after the NATO engagement in Kosovo. That issue dominated much of the election period. Indeed, he will no doubt recall the leader of the Scottish National Party starting the election campaign by saying that it was error of some proportion—I think he said that it was an unpardonable folly. That was a huge issue that dominated the news, but no one suggested at the time that it detracted from the proper discussion and debate about the issues that the new Scottish Parliament was going to debate.

The noble Lord will also recall that in 2003, some six weeks before the election, under the leadership of his right honourable friend Mr Tony Blair, this country invaded Iraq. The noble Lord supported it; I did not. Nevertheless, it was an issue of considerable importance—neither of us would disagree with that. The whole invasion campaign dominated the period of the Scottish election campaign. I do not think that anyone suggested that debates on the issues that the Scottish Parliament was responsible for, be that health, education, transport or local government, were in any way impeded and that politicians did not engage in those debates as they went to the hustings in the May 2003 election.

I suspect that, by comparison, however important we may think a referendum on the alternative vote system for the House of Commons is, in my view that does not compare in gravity with the invasion of Iraq. I have no doubt that when it comes to the lead-up to the election, the people of Scotland will be able to distinguish clearly between the issues involved in the election of Members to the Scottish Parliament and the issue that they will be asked to address of how the other place should be elected in future.

The noble Lord seemed to suggest in his remarks that it was a constitutional outrage to link two polling opportunities together. He will no doubt recall, or maybe he does not, that in May 1998 the Government, of which I suspect he was not a member then but was subsequently a member, actually combined the referendum on the London mayor with the London local elections. I look back and consider that the general election of 2001 was linked to the local elections; indeed, they were both moved—at least, the local elections were moved and the general election piggybacked them—to June 2001 because of foot and mouth disease.

I think that I am right in saying that in 2009 the Government of which the noble Lord had recently ceased to be a member moved the local elections to coincide with the European election, and that the right honourable gentleman Gordon Brown was quite happy this year to combine the general election with the English elections that were already taking place. The combination of elections is not exactly unprecedented; there has been quite a lot of it in recent times.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

While it is always fascinating to have a lengthy analysis of many things that have nothing whatever to do with the Scottish parliamentary elections, I remind the Minister, if he is going to continue with this theme for many more minutes, that the Gould report dealt with the point that if one has two particular votes being made at the same time, the concern is that there would be a dominance of one campaign by the other. He considered that it was wholly inappropriate to have the Scottish parliamentary contest potentially dominated by another election or vice versa, as I indicated earlier. If the Minister might answer that particular point as opposed to proceeding with his historical analysis, we might gain some light on the matter.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The only reason I proceeded with an historical analysis was that the noble and learned Lord’s noble friend said that it was “almost unprecedented”. I was identifying a number of occasions on which it had happened, under the auspices of the Government of which both noble Lords were, at some time, members.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davidson of Glen Clova and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 6th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I sought to draw a distinction, which I think my noble friend Lady Noakes made, under Amendment 57, where the question is of the designated person himself or herself. My noble friend made a different point, the position on which I indicated I would write to her and clarify.

My understanding is that it would be possible for the court to make, as he says, such orders as it considers appropriate. That is not qualified in any way, although I take the noble Lord’s point. If indeed it requires further specification then I will be willing to consider that. If it is felt that the nature of what is in the Bill, although it seems very wide, is insufficiently wide to cover the reassurance that I have given, I will undertake to look further at that.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

I am invited to withdraw, and the Minister has always been remarkably persuasive when I appeared against him in court. There are a couple of points though. First, one cannot write off the Antipodes with a wave of the hand in the way that the Minister sought to do; they face the same problems and have produced imaginative responses.

With regard to the question of imposing a duty in respect of compensation, true it is that that differs from the 2001 Act; but it does not avoid the dissonance that the 2001 Act actually refers to a possibility—that is, a discretion in relation to compensation. I invite the Minister at least to consider whether there might be a similar discretion, if not a duty, in the Bill.

In relation to the safeguards already in place, one may obtain damages whether one is the designated person or a non-designated person. I am still slightly confused as to where in the Bill one is to find this. If it is to the Appeal Court that one must go, then not only is there the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised—we will find out in due course what the answer to that is—but there is also the question of how the Appeal Court is going to deal with damages. As the Minister well knows, simply because one asserts a damage, it does not follow that it will be accepted by the authorities. Is the Appeal Court to have a fact-finding role in relation to damages?

In relation to judicial review, again, for a party who is not the designated person to raise their own judicial review and proceed to damages is perhaps not necessarily—as a matter of law, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests—the most obvious way of acquiring damages. Again, it would be helpful in due course to have some clarification on that. I welcome the Minister’s embrace of the Human Rights Act, for which I know he has a strong regard, although it has not always been demonstrated by other members of the coalition. The way in which this is to proceed leaves a certain gap as to where the Human Rights Act will go in these issues. I will accede to the Minister’s suggestion that I withdraw the amendment, but I also note that we may well return to this on Report.