Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, in the exchanges during Oral Questions, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated that, given the Conference Recess, the length of Prorogation would not mean too many more days of parliamentary time lost. This argument has been deployed on several occasions by government spokespeople, and so I sought to try to find the dates of the Conference Recess. I do not seem to be able to find them anywhere. I congratulate the Chief Whip on his appointment, but can he point me in the direction of where I will find them, or is it the case that they have not been published and that without Prorogation the default position is that we would continue to sit next week and the week after, through the conference season?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the reports in the press suggesting that some Members of the Opposition might seize control of the agenda in this House—I understood that we were given an undertaking that that would never happen again—and use that opportunity to introduce a guillotine to this House for the first time? Does he not agree that the very purpose of this House arises from the fact that the guillotine in the Commons results in Bills coming to us that have not been properly scrutinised, and that therefore the introduction of any guillotine to this House would destroy its very purpose and create a precedent that would have serious, almost constitutionally outrageous, implications?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

On the subject of trust, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the Edinburgh agreement, which the Scottish nationalists signed up to. No sooner was the ink dry on the paper than they were repudiating it. Does he remember the assertion that it would be a “once in a generation” referendum on independence? Surely we are dealing in Scotland with a nationalist Government determined to destroy the United Kingdom. Why on earth would one want to give them a veto over decisions taken by the United Kingdom Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I accept that, with regard to “once in a generation”, the Scottish National Party is guilty of not living up to what it said, but it is not right to say that, once the ink was dry on the paper, it totally forgot it. What was in that agreement informed both the Section 30 order that was passed and the legislation then passed by the Scottish Parliament in conformity with the agreement. A substantial part of that agreement was carried through in good faith by both parties.

The detailed wording of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act was important in getting the right balance in the devolution settlement. If in the normal course of events that were to change, it would require an order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act, which requires an affirmative vote not only by both Houses of this Parliament but by the Scottish Parliament. What we are proposing is consistent with what would happen in the normal course of events when the balance of the devolution settlement was changed. That is why I strongly encourage the Minister at least to show willingness to think about this matter and reassure us that the Government are sensitive to it. That could go some way towards establishing a better basis for trust as we look forward to our debates on Clause 11.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

May I ask the noble Lord to cast his mind back to 26 January 2012, when I moved a Motion that the Scotland Bill be considered in Committee, and he moved an amendment that the House,

“declines to consider the Bill in Committee until Her Majesty’s Government have laid before Parliament a report on the results of the consultation they launched on 11 January on Scotland’s constitutional future and until the Scottish Parliament has passed a further Legislative Consent Motion in respect of the Bill”?—[Official Report, 26/1/12; col. 1161.]

He was going to deny a Committee stage on a Bill that contained measures supported in the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour manifestos at the preceding general election. This amendment would still allow the Bill to go forward and become an Act. How does he describe his apparent lack of consistency?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I think I was behaving exactly like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I was using the procedures of the House to make an argument against what I thought at the time was a very bad Bill—and which only this week has meant that people like me are now the highest taxpayers in the United Kingdom, as we predicted would happen. If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, his point is completely irrelevant to the amendment before us.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talks about tensions being created in Edinburgh between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. There will always be tensions between this United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, as long as it is run by people who wish to destroy the United Kingdom. That is what they are about: using their powers to break the United Kingdom. The notion that we should move in a direction and get ourselves into a position where we need lots of legislative consent Motions simply provides more opportunities for everything to be turned into a constitutional crisis, which is the nature of the SNP. We will come to that later in our consideration of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said in response to my intervention. On the occasion to which I referred, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, actually supported him in trying to stop the Bill going forward to Committee stage.

I think that what my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said about the sheer frustration that lies behind the amendment—and what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about the lack of conversation—is absolutely true. That has coloured the background to these discussions. It is worth reminding ourselves about the root of some of this frustration. I think it was in October 2016 when, in a plenary session chaired by the Prime Minister, the Joint Ministerial Committee established the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, with the following terms of reference:

“Working together in EU Negotiations … Through the JMC(EN) the governments will work collaboratively to: discuss each government’s requirements of the future relationship with the EU; seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for, Article 50 negotiations; and … provide oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured from these negotiations; and, discuss issues stemming from the negotiation process which may impact upon or have consequences for the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive”.


The fact that, tomorrow, the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations will meet for the second time in 12 months suggests that these terms of reference, agreed by the three devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government, have been more honoured in the breach than they have been in the actual implementation. That is at the source of much of the frustration that we have heard expressed. One hears it: when he was replying to the debate initiated on 25 January, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, said:

“The important thing is to stress that it is not for want of effort on our part”—


that is, the United Kingdom Government’s part—

“to secure a form of words that would allow the two devolved Administrations and the UK Government to reach a consensus on that point”.—[Official Report, 25/1/18; col. 1128.]

Yet, if you go to the devolved Administrations, they will say that they have had no communication. There is a lack of communication and there seems to be a complete mismatch with what has been said to us.

It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us yet whether the actual wording of any possible amendment to Clause 11—the Secretary of State for Scotland has accepted that Clause 11 has to be amended; he said that it would be done on Report in the House of Commons, but it was not—has been discussed at ministerial level between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. If so, when was that discussed? When the Scottish and Welsh Governments addressed a briefing of Peers in late January they indicated that there had been no exchange of wording.

What is even more frustrating is that it does not seem that the parties are terribly far apart. In September last year, the Scottish Government acknowledged in their legislative consent memorandum that there were areas in which there would have to be common UK frameworks. The communiqué issued after the last Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in October also set out the areas in which UK common frameworks were necessary and desirable. Both sides have agreed that that has to be done. Why in the world is more progress not being made, or at least why are we not able to see what progress, if any, is being made?

Perhaps the biggest problem here is the fact that it is done behind closed doors. If there were more transparency, we would see who was playing to the gallery and who was trying genuinely to seek a resolution to these matters. There are issues, such as agriculture, fisheries and the environment, where everybody acknowledges that there will have to be some kind of common framework. Let us identify what progress has been made.

We were told this week in newspaper reports that the United Kingdom Government have done a complete reversal. They now say that they will bring forward an amendment that will devolve everything back to the devolved Administrations, but, as it said in the Times report from yesterday,

“UK ministers are also adamant they would need to retain a veto over the use of some of these powers until ‘common frameworks’ are agreed”.

Again, in terms of public relations, it is like saying, “Here’s one hand; we’ll take away with the other”. What is the position? If we are to have to make decisions when we come to debate Clause 11, it is important that we know what the relationship is and what each side in these negotiations is saying.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble and learned Lord is very clever and experienced at negotiations with different political parties in government. Perhaps I am too stupid, but I cannot think of a way—and I agree with a lot of what he said—to word an amendment that would deliver the result that he suggests is needed. Can he help me? What would an amendment actually say that ensured that there was the kind of continuing co-operation that is needed?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, there is certainly one attached to Clause 11 that has my name on it, as well as the names of a number of other noble Lords. He will find that Amendment 303 sets out a basis for having common frameworks. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has one in very similar terms, Amendment 304, which certainly provides a basis for moving forward. We are in opposition. The onus is on the Government to come forward with this. Let us not kid ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes a fair point, but it is the Secretary of State for Scotland who promised amendments on Report in the House of Commons. He has made the commitment to amendments, so the onus is not on the Opposition to come forward with these amendments but on the Government.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us what the colour of the Government’s amendments will be. In the European Union negotiations, TF50 sets out where each of the parties is and gives us great transparency—where there is disagreement and where there are things that have to be clarified. This whole exercise would benefit from far greater transparency so that we can see what progress is or is not being made, who is holding things up and who is genuinely seeking to make progress. I appeal to the Minister to make a commitment when he replies that, following tomorrow’s JMC on the European negotiations, that transparency will become a reality.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, with characteristic vigour, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, has laid out the many misgivings that have been expressed about the proposed merger—it is not even a merger but a dismemberment of the British Transport Police, with the Scottish part of it being put into Police Scotland. Many of the arguments were rehearsed when your Lordships’ House debated the devolution of legislative competence for dealing with the policing of railways and railway premises during the passage of the Scotland Act back in 2016.

Before coming back to that, perhaps I may do the unforgivable and talk about what the order and the amendment say. As the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, indicated, the order takes forward the response by the Scottish Parliament to a decision of the Supreme Court on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, sat in the Cadder case. I have a vivid memory of the time, because the Scottish Parliament had to pass emergency legislation immediately to address the breach of the European Convention on Human Rights that had been identified by the Supreme Court. At the time, as Advocate-General for Scotland, I had to take careful note of what was going on in the Scottish Parliament. We had a TV monitor of the parliamentary proceedings in my office because we had to decide very quickly whether we wished to make reference to the Supreme Court if we thought that any Bill had gone beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and whether any amendments being passed right up to the last minute would change that. It was open to me under Section 33(3) of the Scotland Act 1998 to indicate to the Presiding Officer that I would not use the four weeks available to consider whether there should be a reference to the Supreme Court and to indicate that I would not refer it. At that point, with concurrence from the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, the Bill could go immediately for Royal Assent, and that is what happened.

It was always anticipated that there would have to be further legislation, which came along six years later, but with the benefit of a review undertaken by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord Justice General Carloway. It is the provisions of that 2016 Act—which, I should point out, received Royal Assent two months before the Scotland Act 2016, to put into perspective what we are debating today—that give rise to the order. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, many of the provisions are to increase the rights of suspects held in detention and deal with the powers of police. Because the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for police outside Scotland in relation to an arrest made in respect of a crime committed in Scotland, or make legislative provision for the British Transport Police—at least, it could not in 2016—the order is necessary to ensure that if the British Transport Police, for example, arrest someone, that person should have the same rights as if they were arrested by a constable of Police Scotland.

That is perfectly proper. These are the provisions of the order that relate to the British Transport Police, along with a further provision relating to stop-and- search powers, which are important and which we do not regret—far from it. I rather suspect that if Her Majesty’s Government reviewed the operation of the provisions in the light of incorporating the British Transport Police into Police Scotland, they might well find that it makes things simpler, because it would not need to be included in the order.

That is why I have misgivings about supporting the amendment, but it is important to reflect on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is important to say at the outset that the integration of the Scottish part of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland was not a recommendation of the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. It recommended devolution of legislative competence in relation to the policing of railways and railway premises and that the British Transport Police should become a cross-border authority. It is the SNP’s interpretation that it has to be integrated into Police Scotland. Integration was only one of three options that the British Transport Police working group identified. Significantly, it was the option with the highest degree of risk and was opposed by most stakeholders.

The noble Lord mentioned the recent report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland. He found in paragraph 47:

“As the decision to transfer BTP’s functions in Scotland to Police Scotland was a Ministerial decision, no single, detailed and authoritative business case which articulates the benefits, disadvantages or costs of the transfer to Police Scotland was developed”.


In many respects, the Scottish Parliament has been asked to do this blind but, as we have heard, there is a majority. There was a failure to consult in any meaningful way, a failure to work out how we maintain the detailed expertise of the British Transport Police on the railways postmerger, how costs would be assigned and how potential disputes would be resolved. That is being done at a time when it is fair to say that considerable challenges face Police Scotland as a result of what I and my party believe was a botched centralisation. Indeed, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament were lonely voices when they made the case against the centralisation of Police Scotland. We have seen a succession of resignations, suspensions of senior officers and early retirements, both in Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. We welcome Susan Deacon’s appointment and hope she can get a grip on things, as she has recently taken the reins. There has been a failed IT project and a report from the Auditor-General in Scotland referring to a number of instances of poor governance and poor use of public money. If that had happened in the second biggest police force in England, let alone the second biggest in the United Kingdom, we would probably have had a “Panorama” special by now. I am not sure why the media have not latched on to what has been going on.

I do not think the time is right at all for this merger. There are other issues which the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has identified in his findings. Among them are the facts that full costs have not been assessed, and the financial impact on railway policy in England and Wales of transfer of railway policing in Scotland has not yet been fully assessed. In that respect, will the Minister tell us, if it transpires that there are costs to transport policing in England and Wales, under the various memorandums of understanding with regard to allocation of costs, where will that cost fall? Will it fall to the Scottish Government to bear? That will undoubtedly be important as things go forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the potential issue of transfer of property. Are there any consequential orders or steps that have to be taken under the Railway Policing (Scotland) Act 2017 that would involve the United Kingdom Government in giving full effect to that? What would be the UK Government’s policy in relation to it? As the noble Lord said, there is some leverage here, and I hope it is used sensitively.

It is also fair, however, to acknowledge that this Parliament, including this House, agreed to the devolution of railway policing in Scotland. I was going to say that the ship has sailed but it is probably better to say that the train has left the station. It is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, supported by Labour and Conservative MSPs, sought to delay the merger until 2027 at the very earliest, failing which to oppose it outright—but it was a decision of the Scottish Parliament to reject that delay and, indeed, to support what happened. It would be remiss of this House to gainsay what has been done by the elected Scottish Parliament, but there are issues still to be determined and some indication of the Government’s stance on those would be very welcome.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may be correct about the train having left the station, but I remind him that during the passage of the Scotland Act as it now is many of us warned about this problem—and he himself made a speech exactly saying that. But such was the political imperative from some people not to be seen doing anything that would cause an upset with the Scottish nationalists that we allowed this to go ahead. The result is that we are looking at the prospect of the destruction of an organisation that has served this United Kingdom well for more than two centuries. Is it two centuries, or over two centuries?

Devolution (Constitution Committee Reports)

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord Jay of Ewelme, for introducing the debate, and their respective committees for giving us the opportunity to consider some very substantial reports containing some very important recommendations. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, to the Front Bench. We look forward not only to his maiden speech replying to this debate—what a challenge—but his subsequent contributions to your Lordships’ House.

There is probably no better place to start than the opening words of the European Union Committee’s report, which sum up the situation quite succinctly:

“The impact of UK withdrawal from the EU on the UK’s devolution settlements is one of the most technically complex and politically contentious elements of the Brexit debate”.


If anything, that may even be an understatement. As has already been referred to, the architecture of the devolution schemes fully reflected—almost took for granted—our membership of the European Union. Section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 indicates that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is outwith the competence of that Parliament if it is incompatible with Community law; there is similar provision for executive actions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that the European Union was the glue that held our union together. In addition, the structure of devolution has been such that everything is devolved unless it is expressly reserved. Devolution includes agriculture, fisheries and the environment—all devolved issues but which hitherto have had a very important European Union component. Logic would certainly indicate, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, did, that following Brexit these would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved bodies.

It is right to say that the Scottish Parliament, in exercising its powers over a number of these areas, has done so within frameworks established by the European Union. Who knows, if we had not been an EU member in 1998—we can speculate but it would be somewhat academic—what further exemptions might there have been in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act? But that is not where we are. There are some very good reasons why we should be pragmatic and apply common sense in suggesting that there must be frameworks which should be discussed and applied at a UK level. I do not believe it is anti-devolution to say so. The committee itself recognised that some things would be best done at a United Kingdom level when we are outside the European Union. Indeed, paragraph 19 of the Scottish Government’s legal consent memorandum on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill states:

“The Scottish Government has made clear … its willingness to negotiate UK frameworks in certain areas previously covered by EU law. This could be, for example, to support the functioning of UK markets, or to facilitate the management of common environmental resources”.


The Scottish Government themselves accept that there is a need for United Kingdom frameworks. It is important, therefore, that we address how we best tackle this and the European Union Committee is absolutely right when it emphasises the,

“need to set aside … differences and work constructively together to achieve an outcome that protects the interests of all parts of the UK. No durable solution will be possible without the consent of all the nations of the UK”.

One of the Select Committee’s recommendations reflects some of the earlier reports from the Constitution Committee about the importance of Joint Ministerial Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, welcomed the establishment of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations). It was announced by the Government, with much fanfare, last autumn. I received during the most recent Recess a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. I had asked how many times that Joint Ministerial Committee had met in 2017. The answer was twice, on 19 January and 8 February. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that there is a meeting scheduled for next week and there have been umpteen, or several, bilateral meetings. But the mechanism established by the United Kingdom Government was to have a Joint Ministerial Committee. The recommendation of the European Union Committee was very practical and the Government’s performance to date has fallen well short of this very reasonable recommendation. It is a test of how seriously the Government take their responsibilities towards achieving an outcome that will be satisfactory to all parts of the United Kingdom.

If we look at how we would establish which should be the areas for common frameworks, it would be wrong for the Government to determine that this should be done on a top-down basis. The concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, with regard to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill betray a certain attitude that this would be done in a top-down way.

A body or a commission should examine these issues. It should be transparent and constructive, in a way that commands support from all parts of the United Kingdom and from all parties. The timescale of a royal commission would probably be too long. However remarkable the work done by the Smith commission, it was far too short and done with a degree of relative secrecy—it was not particularly opaque. We need something that is transparent and engages people, for example by taking evidence from the fishing industry, the agricultural industry and environmental groups as to what they think it important that we should do on a United Kingdom basis. After that the respective Administrations could, as they do now under European frameworks, produce detailed policies within that framework to meet the needs of particular areas.

Even when these United Kingdom-level frameworks are agreed, it would again be wrong if it were purely the United Kingdom Government who set the agenda. We should look for a balance of competences that is both devolved and shared. For example, the Joint Ministerial Committees could be put on a statutory footing. They would no longer be the talking shops which they often have been and could be invested with executive powers. For example, it may be necessary to consider whether they should operate with the possibility of weighted voting. Having made that agreement, the respective devolved Parliaments and Administrations—and the Westminster Parliament, as far as England is concerned—could then be allowed to work out how these agreements would be implemented in detail. That might in some ways be seen as a derogation from the sovereignty of Parliament but I believe David Cameron’s Conservative Government went down that path with their English votes for English laws. We now have a situation where one subset of Parliament, the English Members, can veto a measure that has been passed by the Lords and the Commons.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord is making a very sensible and careful speech but could he just explain to me how agricultural subsidies would work under his scheme of things? Most of the money spent by the European Union is on the CAP and before we joined the European Union, we had a common system set by the United Kingdom Parliament. I find it quite difficult to envisage different subsidies for sheep on either side of the Scottish or Welsh borders, or how a market would operate under those proposals. I am thinking of the politics of it, where we have a Government in Scotland who wish to break up the United Kingdom. I just do not see how it could be practical. Is it not a little hypocritical of those who argue that we should remain in the European Union, and that these powers should therefore remain in Brussels, to say that they cannot possibly be exercised by the United Kingdom Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes an important point about the distribution of funds but that point should be agreed. It should not be done, as it were, on a top-down basis by the United Kingdom Government. I would point out to him that when there was a change in the basis for European Union agricultural payments in the early years of this century, Scotland went down the route of historic payments whereas England certainly went down that of payments based on area—I am not sure about Wales. So even under the present arrangements, there are differences in how these things are dealt with north and south of the border.

I will not detain the House on other issues relating to migration, on which the committee made important recommendations. Having looked at the Government’s response, it makes the word “banal” sound exciting—there was no response at all. The Government should have second thoughts on that and address the very important points made by the committee.

If we had a ministerial group setting out the framework, as I have proposed, we would also need some body to overlook it. That could well be done through an interparliamentary body, trying to bring the different Parliaments of the United Kingdom together—in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament—to provide that kind of oversight. If that is a step towards federalism, then certainly from these Benches I do not apologise.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Stephen and myself. I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this important debate on the fiscal framework. It is long awaited. Although we had a very good debate in Committee, it was a bit like “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark; it was about the fiscal framework without the actual fiscal framework agreement. At least we can now have a debate on this important part of the architecture of Scottish governance following the Smith commission’s proposals in the light of the agreement which was published at the end of last week.

The amendment which my noble friend and I have tabled is to address the mechanism for the review of the fiscal framework. The Smith commission said that it was important that there was a review, and in Committee we moved an amendment to establish a review. We have tried to revise that amendment in the light of the agreement as we now see it.

When the Minister replies, it would be helpful if he could give us some indication of how the Government understand the review and the mechanisms. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Greg Hands, was right to point out that there is a distinction between the review and dispute resolution. I am rather intrigued by the fact that in the agreement the review is referred to in paragraphs 20 to 23 and again in paragraphs 111 to 113, some of which appears repetitious and almost as if there is something uncertain about it. It is as if the more often you say it, it might just happen. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if there is anything we should read into the fact that it was felt necessary to repeat some of the proposals with regard to the review at a later stage.

The First Minister of Scotland in her Statement to the Scottish Parliament last week seemed to indicate—I sat and listened to it—that there could be a veto over the Scottish Government accepting anything which was not to their advantage following the review. Indeed, paragraph 112 states:

“It will be open to either government to propose changes to the fiscal framework from”,

the point of the review or the end of 2021, and:

“The fiscal framework does not include or assume the method for adjusting the block grant beyond the transitional period”.

The Chief Secretary seemed to say today that it was “our model”, which I assume to mean Her Majesty’s Treasury’s model, whereas the transition period was the Scottish Government’s transition period. So—this is a question which the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, asked last week when the noble Lord repeated the Statement—what is the default position? Is the default position the Treasury model, or is there in fact a veto? What happens if there is not agreement following a review? One was left with the impression that it is a bit, “it’ll be all right on the night”. Those of us who have seen the negotiations with the Scottish Government know that it will not necessarily be all right on the night. They may well take things up to the brink.

Under Section 64 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Consolidated Fund is established, and subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State shall pay sums into the Consolidated Fund, but the sums are not predicated by any agreement or formula, and certainly are not predicated by the statute. I imagine that if all else failed, the ball would be at the feet of the Secretary of State, who has to pay money into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how, in the event of impasse and of no agreement being reached, the UK Government, particularly Her Majesty’s Treasury, see that sum to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund being arrived at, given that it is actually the Secretary of State’s decision and, according to statute, is not in any way fettered. It is important that we get some clarity about what should happen.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is it not clear throughout? Paragraph 52, regarding a dispute over the no-detriment principle, says:

“Without a joint agreement, no transfer or decision will be made”,

while paragraph 103, on dispute resolution, says:

“If no agreement can be reached”,

between the Governments,

“then the dispute falls—there would be no specific outcome from the dispute and so no fiscal transfer between the Governments”.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I noted earlier, with regard to paragraph 103, that it surely cannot be conceivable that the funding would dry up. The House is therefore owed an explanation as to precisely what lies behind paragraphs 52 and 103 of this agreement.

The proposal that my noble friend and I have tabled is that there should be a review, which should be informed by a commission. The commission should be three persons from the Office for Budget Responsibility advisory panel, to be appointed by the OBR’s chairman, therefore taking it even more than arm’s length away from the Government, and there also should be membership of a Scottish professional body—it could be the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland or CIPFA—to be agreed by Her Majesty’s Treasury and Scottish Ministers, whose members should be appointed by the senior office-bearer of that body. Again, that is an attempt to put it at one remove from the Scottish Government. It would be a genuinely independent body that would inform the review about how the fiscal framework had worked.

We go further than that by saying that no person appointed to the commission should have been a member of any political party for five years prior to accepting membership. Consistent with the fiscal framework, the report should be laid no later than 30 November 2021 and submitted to both Houses of this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Scottish Ministers.

All that we find out in the fiscal framework agreement is that the arrangements for review, including how independent they will be, should be left to the Joint Exchequer Committee. We may feel that in order to be reassured, it is not unreasonable for Parliament to set some parameters for how the independence of that review body will be established. The amendment is therefore intended to probe just what Ministers have in mind with regard to the working out of that review, and indeed to answer some of the questions about what happens in the event of a failure to reach agreement on the review. There are important questions to be answered, and I look forward to the response of the Minister.

I am sorry, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, waiting to intervene or to ask a question?

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, paragraph 67 of the Smith commission report states:

“The functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter”.

That is a simple and straightforward sentence, but what lies behind it is actually very profound. My concern is that what is being proposed by the Government does not safeguard the functions of the British Transport Police if they are devolved. I respect and generally support the way it is being done in terms of exceptions to the general reservation under Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, but what we have heard is that the Scottish Government intend to put the British Transport Police under the ambit of Police Scotland.

I will not go into the woes of Police Scotland with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who have both mentioned them, but even at its best one can readily imagine that once the BTP comes under the auspices of Police Scotland, if you are the chief constable and you have problems and challenges with regard to resources, you might well think, “Well, why do we have a specific police presence in Waverley station? Surely it can be covered by the police we have got who would otherwise be monitoring Princes Street?”. It would not be proper for politicians to interfere in the operational decisions of the chief constable. For operational reasons the functions of the British Transport Police under a different guise could be whittled away bit by bit.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Of course there is also the complicating factor that part of the budget of the British Transport Police is actually paid for by the transport operators.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and we aired these concerns when this was debated in Committee.

It is interesting to note in the submission made by the British Transport Police Federation to the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee that:

“In 2001, the government response to the DfT consultation which led to the BTPA’s creation … stated that: ‘The Government therefore considers that the national railway network is best protected by a unified police force providing a dedicated, specialist service and able to give proper priority to the policing of the railways’”.

The memorandum to the committee of the Scottish Parliament goes on to quote the Transport Select Committee of the other place in 2004, which,

“looked at the reforms to the BTP’s governance arrangements … It concluded that: ‘The British Transport Police is not a Home Office Force, and nothing we have heard suggests that it should become one. The railways are a specialised environment, with specialised needs, and need a specialised Force’. They continued: ‘The steady reduction of resources allocated to traffic policing leads us to agree with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that unless there is a national force dedicated to policing the rail network, the task will not be given the priority it needs’”.

Our concern is that if, having devolved and lost control of this area and the Scottish Government exercise the devolved powers that they have to bring it under the direction of Police Scotland, the very concerns that were expressed by the BTPF and others will be borne out. The specialist services which the British Transport Police currently deliver could be lost over time, and therefore what the Smith commission argues is that the functions possibly could no longer be exercised.

Noble Lords have referred to a number of those functions, in particular tackling terrorism on our transport network. One I particularly note is that:

“The British Transport Police has created specialist teams with responsibility for the management of multi-agency support for local and national suicide prevention, mental health interventions and vulnerable persons encounters. An ongoing force-wide operation (Operation Avert) has so far achieved a 30% reduction in suicide attempts compared to the same period the year before”.

These are very profound specialist functions that the British Transport Police provide.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 22nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and learned Lord makes a very important and perceptive point, and I am glad it is not me who has to reply to it from the Dispatch Box. I certainly see his point that it is a very stark, simple Long Title. To actually extend the ambit of the Bill to Measures or Acts of the National Assembly for Wales or legislation of the Northern Ireland Assembly does seem a bit of a stretch. No doubt the Minister can enlighten us when he comes to reply.

The important point is that we do take seriously the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At the heart of it, these are extremely wide powers and, in some respects, exceptional powers. With the one exception relating to Part 3, no explanation or justification has been provided by the Government for taking these wide powers.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Could the noble and learned Lord, with his considerable experience, give me some legal advice? I wonder whether, if a clause like this had been included in the previous Scotland Bill, it would have been necessary to have this Bill at all.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is a good point. As the noble Lord was making it I was wondering whether the phrase,

“any other instrument or document”,

could apply to the fiscal framework—but perhaps that is stretching things a bit too far. Actually, “any document” could include the fiscal framework, so perhaps the Minister can tell us more.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. In my old constituency of Stirling, we used to have a police station in my own village; we had them in Balfron and elsewhere, but they have all disappeared. We now have two wildlife policemen who are going around trying to find someone to prosecute for something—without much success, I am told, and at vast expense. All of this is absolutely in the face of what local people say they want, which is local policing and local involvement. One of the great ironies of this whole devolution project is that it was supposed to be about returning power to local people, but the Scottish Parliament seems to have been absolutely concerned to centralise everything and to take a very authoritarian view.

This proposal to break up the British Transport Police —I am now on the amendment—is an absolute classic example of the failure of thinking which has brought such disaster to Scotland’s police force. British Transport Police has been there certainly since the 1850s, when it was realised that a railway would enable criminals to move around the country and that it was necessary to have a police force on the trains with the authority to act wherever its officers were. That system has worked brilliantly; it is one of the great success stories.

The truth of the matter is that the reason that the nationalists do not want to have the British Transport Police is because of the “B” in British Transport Police. Perhaps we could just call it something else—perhaps we could call it the “National Transport Police” —and then we could get agreement that it makes sense to have a cross-border force run on a cross-border basis. It has done the most brilliant work, not all of it publicised for obvious reasons, on drugs hauls that have been taken from trains at Glasgow that have come from the south, on the movement of terrorists and others who threaten us, and on the integration of the Glasgow underground with the London Underground and the whole of the transport system. The BTP is a group of people organised in four divisions—there is a Scottish division—who understand and have the expertise to deal with the intricacies of policing a transport system. That is a success, and for it to be smashed up would be crazy.

I know that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary and the clause does not actually provide for the breaking up of the British Transport Police, but we know that that is what the Scottish Government intend to do. In doing so, they will undermine not just the security of people in Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, but the security and enforcement of law in the United Kingdom as a whole. This is not a matter which should be subject to devolution; this is a matter of national, United Kingdom interest. I very much hope that the Government will drop it from the Bill. The rather throw-away line that we got from the Smith commission, which showed no understanding of what the British Transport Police has been doing, is, to say the least, a disappointment.

The fact that the Justice Minister in Scotland should announce that he wanted to get rid of the British Transport Police and integrate it into the Scottish police with no consultation whatsoever, and in the face of strong opposition from former commanders in Scotland, who actually did the job, but who are ignored, is unacceptable. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the noble Lord’s amendment or, even better, drop the whole thing altogether.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stephen and I tabled clause stand part debates on Clauses 42 and 43 because it is important that the Government should justify to the Committee why they are taking this step, not least given the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Forsyth. After all, I am told that the British Transport Police has reduced crime on Scotland’s rail network by 56% since 2005, compared to an overall reduction of crime in Scotland of 38%, so it is clearly doing something right.

Paragraph 67 of the Smith commission report states:

“The functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter”.

That is a slightly different thing from saying that the British Transport Police shall be devolved. We really ought to have an explanation from the Government as to why they have chosen this form of devolution. It is complex. No doubt the Minister will give a fuller explanation, but until legislative competence has been devolved, which is what I understand Clause 42 is intended to do, the Scottish Parliament cannot make provision for what will happen and the British Transport Police will continue as a cross-border public authority under Section 88 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Minister may want to indicate what that means in practice. Does it mean more than that UK Ministers are obliged to consult about appointments and the like and that reports must be laid before both the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament?

The Scotland Office briefing note that was given to noble Lords at a very worthwhile briefing way back in November said that this was a first step. We want to know what the next step and subsequent steps will be. Considerable concern has been expressed about this provision.

It is no secret that I am a pretty strong home ruler, but I cannot say that the devolution of the British Transport Police was ever near the top of my agenda of things that needed to be devolved. One wonders where it came from. Perhaps the secret is in what the Scottish Justice Minister said, in what sounds very much like empire-building, whether on his part or that of Police Scotland, to try to subsume the British Transport Police. That is the concern: that the British Transport Police is to be subsumed into Police Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated, Police Scotland seems to have enough on its plate at present, although I agree with him that the new chief constable must be given the opportunity to try to restore both morale in his force and confidence in the public.

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was very passionate, raising the constitutional issues of having a single national police force. I just wish that he had spoken to the Conservative Party in the Scottish Parliament—and that the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament had taken cognizance—because the Liberal Democrats were the only party in the Scottish Parliament that stood against the creation of a national police force.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I did, but, for extraordinary reasons, it decided not to take my advice.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

I am uncomfortable about the arguments about what might happen when devolution takes place—that is an argument for a different forum—but clearly, devolution is not the same as abolition. As I said, the Smith commission said that it should be the functions of the British Transport Police that are devolved. The British Transport Police Federation made a submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee in which it set out a number of options.

One option consisted of proposals of a legislative administrative nature, which would devolve policing and embody in statute arrangements by which the Scottish Government could give direction to the BTPA and specify direction of railway policing, but the model would provide that the chief constable of the British Transport Police would engage with Scottish institutions in the same way as the chief constable of Police Scotland does at the moment. Responsibility for pensions, employment contracts and defraying the cost of policing to the rail industry would remain with the British Transport Police Authority, although the Scottish Police Authority would have great involvement at strategic and planning level. Another option was to achieve devolution by administrative rather than legislative means, maintaining the responsibility on the BTPA to pass on the cost of the force to the rail industry, as well as responsibility over employment matters and pensions.

The Government owe the Committee an explanation of why they adopted this particular form of devolution, given that it was the functions of the British Transport Police rather than the police themselves that the Smith commission recommended be devolved.

We should not lose sight of what the British Transport Police is and what it brings to the service. Interestingly enough, it is not responsible to the Home Office; its sponsoring ministry is the Department for Transport. That is important. It means that it has particular training and skills which are different from the rest of the police force. Can we be assured that in any scheme for transfer, particular provision will be made to maintain those skills—for example, dealing with level crossing incidents and trespass? We have heard about drugs and terrorism—although I know that those who work within Police Scotland in liaison with the Metropolitan Police and others are very important. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned investigations of suicides—the tragedies that happen on our rail network.

The briefing made available to the Scottish Parliament committee stated that under Operation Avert, which is being promoted by the British Transport Police at the moment, there has been a 30% reduction in suicide attempts over the past year. That is very valuable, and we need reassurance from the Minister that it will not be lost.

What engagement has there been with staff? I understand that there are about 50 civilian posts and 230 police officers with the British Transport Police in Scotland. They are not tied to the police pension scheme; there is a separate, private pension for British Transport Police officers. Will the provisions safeguard the employment and pension rights of serving officers? What are the financial implications?

The Scotland Office briefing states that the British Transport Police costs are met through charges for the policing services it provides. Will the secondary legislation allow for train companies to be charged? If so and there is an incorporation into Police Scotland, how can we ensure that charges made to railway companies will go to provide the services to the rail network and not just into a pot used to fund other policing services? It is important that we are given some reassurance that they will go to services relating to railways and railway properties.

The notion of cross-border institutions, which appears in the Scotland Act, is sometimes not fully understood. You can have a service and a function that literally is cross-border—that is, it operates in Scotland as well as England but is a reserved matter, not run by a cross-border authority. Here we have, as a result of Clause 43, something that is both; it will be cross-border institutionally and very literally cross-border in what it does. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has just indicated, it is very clear that there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is just a great pity that the Government will not accede to the request from all sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom for a constitutional convention, in which many of these relationships could be properly looked at. The right reverend Prelate reminded me that we have to be careful with the wording here. To say so stridently that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent will start raising doubts about whether anyone would think anything else. That is why care has to be taken here.

In the 1990s I was part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It came up with the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament, which, to its credit, the Labour Party, elected in 1997, faithfully put into legislative form. I remember many discussions in the constitutional convention about how to entrench the Parliament. We kept going round in circles on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and on whether we should have a referendum. In the end, the convention decided that it could make no such proposal. The Labour Party proposed a two-question referendum. My party and I were opposed to that as it was not what the convention had agreed, but I think that I was wrong. The fact that we had a referendum in 1997 and that the Parliament was established on the basis of a very strong popular vote in Scotland meant that it found its own form of political entrenchment. We could go round in circles here having a highbrow constitutional discussion on the nature of the sovereignty of Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, used the words “political reality” in moving his amendment. At the end of the day, we come back to political reality. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the people of Scotland voted to abolish the Scottish Parliament, primary legislation in this Parliament would be required for that to happen, but of course if this Parliament chose to ignore what the people of Scotland said, that would bring about a constitutional crisis because political reality would kick in. That is why I also disagree with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is saying that if the Parliament were removed, it would have to be done not only on the vote of the Scottish people but on the vote of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament might well vote to get rid of the Parliament because it was not doing a particularly good job. Therefore, you do not give the veto to the people whom you want to get rid of and who have a vested interest in keeping the Parliament.

These things are hypothetical because, quite simply, I do not see them happening. That is why I think that political reality is more relevant to this debate than highbrow discussions on parliamentary sovereignty. As ever, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the subject of political reality, is it not the policy of the noble and learned Lord’s party to have a constitutional convention with a view to creating a federal United Kingdom? What happens if we have a provision in law saying that the Scottish Parliament as it stands is permanent and the rest of the United Kingdom wishes to alter the structure and have a federal constitution along the lines that he suggests and that is blocked because of these provisions? Perhaps he thinks the political reality is that what he wishes for will never happen, but surely it is wrong to create inflexibility, given that he and his party accept that the present system is not a stable, lasting settlement.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. But under any federal system there would be a Scottish Parliament. I echo again Section 1(1) of the Scotland Act 1998: there still would be a Scottish Parliament. It may have a different form and different powers, but there still would be a Scottish Parliament. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the Scottish Parliament that we refer to in Clause 1 of this Bill is for ever frozen in aspic or that it would not inherit other powers at some time to come.

The issue is indeed one of political reality. We are also duty bound to have regard to the wording of this part of the clause.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is the noble and learned Lord saying that when the clause heading says:

“Permanence of the Scottish Parliament”,

this is not referring to all the powers and privileges of that Parliament but just to the name, and that the powers could be changed? Is he saying that the effect would be that we could take away all its powers but, provided that there was still a building and something called the Scottish Parliament, that would be covered?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Let me get back to political reality. I do not believe that that would happen. But I think it is very likely that we will have some measures in the future—probably the not-too-distant future—under which more powers are given to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, it comes back to the same thing: to the political reality. If there was a move resulting in a constitutional convention or a federal system for the United Kingdom, which my colleagues and I aspire to, the political reality of that would see it delivered.

I have much sympathy for the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because I simply do not know what is meant by,

“with due regard to the other provisions of this Act”.

No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will tell us in his reply what the importance of including those words is.

I also wonder what is meant in subsection (3), which says:

“In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”.

I do not think that the “people of Scotland” is anywhere defined in this. Is it the people resident in Scotland, which was the qualification for the referendum in 2014? At that time, many noble Lords received many representations from expatriate Scots living abroad or living in London who consider themselves to be part of the people of Scotland. So would they be part of the referendum that is proposed by the Government with regard to the future of the Scottish Parliament? That is why I think that the wording proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the second part of his amendment—

“a majority of those voting at the referendum”,

which has been held in Scotland—has greater clarity than the Government’s wording of this particular clause.

Just as Parliament could, technically, repeal the Statute of Westminster of 1931 but would never dream of doing it, the constitutional reality of the sovereignty of Parliament is not relevant to this. At the end of the day, what will matter is what the people actually want.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, nothing I said takes away from what I said at the outset: that it is very desirable that we see the fiscal framework. The Government should take from all sides of the House that there has been a view to that effect. While I think it is nonsense to expect the Government to reveal their negotiating hand in this debate, it is not unreasonable to ask, perhaps, for more transparency to show that progress is being made, and for the Government to enunciate some principles as to what they wish to see in the fiscal framework.

For example, one hopes that the Government’s negotiating stance is to seek fairness on all sides—for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Their role is to take in the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the rest of the United Kingdom. The no-detriment principle should be at the point of devolution: that there is no detriment one way or the other when a particular tax is devolved. There should be a form of indexation—I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it should be one which in itself is neutral, with an automatic mechanism to avoid an annual row.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does not the noble and learned Lord think that there is a great irony that the Scottish nationalists are arguing that it is essential for the Scottish Parliament to be able to consider the Bill alongside the fiscal framework, in order to ensure the best interests of Scotland, when this is a Bill that will affect every part of the United Kingdom and the House of Commons has not had an opportunity to do what the nationalists are saying is essential, and quite rightly so, in a Scottish context?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not sure what, if anything, was said in the House of Commons about the lack of the fiscal framework when the Bill was being debated there—in fairness, I am sure that it was discussed—but what I have said is that the Government should be seeking to negotiate for the whole of the United Kingdom: there should be fairness all round with regard to this.

Crucially, we should make it very clear that Scotland should bear the full fiscal consequences of its own decisions. There has been some suggestion somewhere that there has been a bit of “cake and eat it”: that somehow or other, if things go wrong, Westminster will top it up. There are those of us who believe that the important rationale for more tax powers is accountability, but that goes out the window unless—for better or worse—the Scottish Parliament accepts responsibility and accountability for the consequences of its decisions.

In conclusion, the important thing that many of us want is to get on and use the powers. From next April, there will be the Scottish rate of income tax. We look forward, once this Bill is implemented, to more than £15 billion-worth of tax powers and £3 billion-worth of welfare.

Scotland: Constitutional Settlement

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord knows the position of my own party with regard to federalism but we are not there yet. However, I believe that by implementing the recommendations of the Smith commission in these proposals, we will ensure that we are honouring our commitment. I take his view that a constitutional convention should not be an excuse for kicking this issue into the long grass. I was a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which produced the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament that was legislated for by the Labour Government in 1997.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell me how he thinks the strategy of piecemeal devolution in Scotland in order to kill nationalism stone dead is going?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, when the Scottish Parliament was established, many of us recognised that more would need to be done in due course. There was at that time recognition that we needed greater financial accountability because it is not healthy to have a Parliament that had total discretion as to how it spent money but little or no discretion as to how it raised that money. It was important that we recognised that in the 2012 Act which this Parliament passed, and the proposals that we have now strengthen that position.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as the House well knows, on 18 September last year the people of Scotland, including tens of thousands of 16 and 17 year-olds, voted in the Scottish independence referendum and made the historic decision that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. The participation of our young people in that vote was truly historic. They showed that they were more than capable of being part of Scottish democracy when they helped their country to take the biggest decision we have faced for centuries. It demonstrated a desire to be involved in an event which would shape the future of their country.

In the run-up to the referendum, pledges were made to the people of Scotland. The three pro-union parties—the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—all made a vow to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament, should Scotland remain within the United Kingdom, thereby ensuring that Scotland retains the best of both worlds. In keeping with that vow, the day after the referendum the Prime Minister made the announcement that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, had agreed to lead a commission to agree what those new powers should be. The commission would work with the five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to make that determination.

The commission invited submissions from political parties, a wide range of business and civic organisations and the wider public to help guide its consideration of what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Following due consideration of all submissions and views garnered by the commission, on 27 November 2014 the report detailing the heads of agreement was published. That report was welcomed by this Government, and, as this House is aware, on the 22nd of last month we published the draft clauses which will make up the substance of the next Scotland Bill to implement the recommendations in that report.

However, one of the recommendations made by the commission is being taken forward separately from that Bill: the recommendation that the United Kingdom Parliament devolves the relevant powers in sufficient time to allow the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections, should the Scottish Parliament wish to do so. That is exactly what this draft order seeks to achieve. Not to have taken this forward now, by means of this order, would have risked the Scottish Parliament having insufficient time to bring forward any subsequent legislation, should it choose to do so, to implement it and to have any necessary measures in place well in time for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. The document to which he referred, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement, published in January, suggested that the alterations to the franchise should require a supermajority of two-thirds in the Scottish Parliament. The order being presented today bypasses that. If it was thought appropriate to have a supermajority to change the franchise in January, why is it not thought appropriate in February?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that point was made by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and I will deal with it when I come to deal with the points made by the committee in its report, published earlier this week.

The draft order is made under Sections 30 and 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Act that set out the original devolution settlement for Scotland and that continues to demonstrate that devolution is remarkably resilient and flexible. Several Section 30 and Section 63 orders have been made under that Act and, even with the new upcoming Bill, we do not expect that to change. Where a need for change is identified and agreed, those changes will be made by the most appropriate means.

By virtue of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998—which I shall refer to as the 1998 Act—this draft order will give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 at elections to the Scottish Parliament and to Scottish local government elections. The Scottish Parliament will also be given the power to legislate to make provision about the registration of electors in order to give effect to any such reduction in the minimum voting age. However, I wish to be clear that the draft order itself does not actually reduce the minimum voting age to 16 at both of these elections. Rather, it paves the way, by conferring the necessary legislative competence on the Scottish Parliament, to make the necessary legislation to achieve this, should it choose to do so.

Section 63 of the 1998 Act allows for an Order in Council to provide for any functions, so far as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown. This draft order will give the Scottish Ministers the ability to exercise certain functions relating to the individual electoral registration digital service—which I shall refer to as the digital service—in or as regards Scotland, when giving effect to provision reducing the minimum voting age to 16 in Scottish Parliament or Scottish local government elections or both. Provision relating to the use of the digital service for applications for registration, or for verifying information contained in applications for registration, is otherwise reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.

The draft order will also have the effect that, if the Scottish Ministers exercise the functions given to them in relation to the digital service, in certain cases the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, and to publish reports prepared by the Electoral Commission, will apply to the Scottish Ministers. I would like to make it clear that the Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise these functions given to them by virtue of this draft order concurrently with UK Ministers and subject to the agreement of a Minister of the Crown.

I appreciate that concerns about the draft order have been raised by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and I turn to these now. A question was raised about the propriety of using Section 30 of the 1998 Act to make this change. As I have already stated, several orders have been made under Section 30 since 1999, and it is right that they should have been. Section 30 is a tailor-made power for altering, by an Order in Council, the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament without the need for primary legislation. Section 30 orders, as they are known, are part of the agreed process set out in the 1998 Act. That Act, including that particular process, was fully scrutinised, and the Section 30 process approved, by this Parliament. Therefore, the use of a Section 30 order is an entirely appropriate way to take forward this matter.

Again, I remind your Lordships that it would not have been possible, in the time available, to deliver this important aspect of the Smith commission agreement if the provisions had been contained in a Bill to be brought forward after the next general election. Any consequent legislation brought forward by the Scottish Parliament to reduce the voting age to 16 for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections will be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament in the normal way.

On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the committee queried whether or not it was appropriate that this order does not include the supermajority procedure requirement. The order delivers the recommendation in the Smith commission which was agreed by all five political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament. Paragraph 25 of the agreement states that the Scottish Parliament should be given the power to legislate to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in time for the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections should it choose to do so. The five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament which agreed this issue during the Smith process will therefore be responsible for bringing forward this change in that Parliament, should they choose to do so. This is a question not even of consensus but of unanimity. I am advised that earlier this morning the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee of the Scottish Parliament unanimously recommended that the Scottish Parliament approve this order. No other change to the operation and structure of the Scottish Parliament has that political consensus at the present time.

These are matters for future Scottish Parliaments to debate and any such change will, as my noble friend pointed out, be subject to a supermajority provision. However, we are talking about a recommendation that came forward from the Smith commission which commands unanimous support within the Scottish Parliament. We therefore believe it is not necessary to include a supermajority provision in the current order.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend is saying to the House that the reason that no supermajority provision is required is because it was a recommendation from the Smith commission. However, this document, An Enduring Settlement, which was the Government’s response to the Smith commission, said that there should be a supermajority for changes to the franchise or important constitutional changes. He has not explained why he has changed the Government’s position in a matter of weeks.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the Government’s position has not changed. My noble friend will have heard that I said in my first paragraph in moving this order that it was laid before the House on 20 January 2015. That was before these clauses were published. It was always clear that there was not going to be a supermajority requirement for the order, which is on a proposal that commands unanimous support in the Scottish Parliament. There are further technical issues. The clause that deals with the supermajority is somewhat complex and would have led to unnecessary complexity in an order for which there is unanimous agreement that it should go forward.

I do not believe that it was ever the intention that this order would require the supermajority provision. To have done so might have led to accusations that we were going back on something that had been agreed. It was announced early on, before the clauses were published, that we would proceed by way of a Section 30 order to meet not only the spirit but the specific recommendation of the Smith commission that this part of the agreement should be taken forward ahead of the Bill to implement other aspects of it.

It is noted in the Constitution Committee’s report that the change made by this order does not directly affect the franchise for UK general elections, European parliamentary elections or local government elections beyond Scotland. Therefore the order has no direct constitutional implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the power to set the franchise for voting in United Kingdom parliamentary elections will remain with this Parliament. It is not the Government’s policy to do that—indeed, it would be impossible—for the next general election in the four or five weeks that are left.

While the committee raises concerns that any reduction in the voting age in Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections may lead to pressure to extend the franchise for other elections, this is not exactly a new debate. Indeed, some parties represented in your Lordships’ House and one of the parties in the coalition—my own—believe that there should be a change in the franchise: it is not a new debate. During the debate on the order in the House of Commons, this was seen to be a positive development. While there may not be a consensus in this Parliament at the present time for changing the franchise for general elections, I am sure the debate will continue.

Rather than devolve only the powers necessary to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in the 2016 and subsequent Scottish Parliament elections, as the committee pointed out the draft order devolves the power to enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate to lower the voting age to 16 in time for the 2017 local government elections in Scotland if it so desires. I can hear a Member saying that this was not in the Smith report. I was just going to explain why it is being done, albeit that it was not in that report. It is another very sensible, practical thing and the Government should be given credit when they do such things. The draft order does, indeed, go further than is specified in the Smith report but in terms of timing only. Unlike with Scottish Parliament elections, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, did not specify the timescales within which the Scottish Parliament should be given the power to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in local government elections. However, the commission did recommend that:

“The Scottish Parliament will have all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland”.

The order clearly does not go beyond that overall recommendation.

Including the power to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in Scottish local government elections in this order was felt to be beneficial and practical for two reasons. First, there is an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament wished to take forward such legislation, then the timing of the forthcoming Scotland Bill would make it very challenging to devolve the necessary powers in sufficient time for the Scottish Parliament, in turn, to legislate in time for the Scottish local elections in May 2017 without breaching normal electoral guidelines. Secondly, the franchise for the Scottish Parliament election is currently the same as that for the local government franchise and the former is set by reference to the latter.

Devolving only the legislative competence to reduce the minimum voting age for Scottish parliamentary elections would have meant that the Scottish Parliament would have needed to separate the Scottish Parliament franchise from the local government franchise. That would have introduced unnecessary complications into the registration system. In the absence of a strong policy reason to make the two franchises different, there seems no reason to separate them when all it would bring is unnecessary cost and complication for electoral administrators and potential confusion for electors.

Finally, the committee raised the issue of data protection and individual electoral registration, particularly in connection with individuals under the age of majority. Enacting provisions to protect the data of the prospective young voters is part of the implementation of the order. The Scottish Parliament is well aware of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and, generally, to adequately safeguard the information provided for, and used in, the process of registering electors. Further, as already mentioned, this draft order will give the Scottish Ministers the ability to exercise certain functions relating to the digital service. I can assure noble Lords that all information used by this system is treated appropriately and is adequately protected. The service is the name given to the series of interlocking digital systems which allow applications to register as an elector to be made online and for the personal information given by applicants to be verified against government data. It comprises the online application service, the secure environment which receives and directs data, secure connections to electoral registration officers and to the Department for Work and Pensions, the DWP processing environment and the interface with electoral registration officers’ election management software.

The other place approved this draft order on 2 February. If the approval of this House and the Scottish Parliament are also secured, then the order will go forward for consideration by Her Majesty in Council. When the order comes into force, the Scottish Parliament will have the legislative competence to bring forward the legislation necessary to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in all Scottish Parliament, Scottish local government elections or both. The United Kingdom Government have fast-tracked devolving the power for this as an exception to the rest of the Smith package so it can be in place in time for 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections and the 2017 Scottish local government elections. It is my understanding that the Scottish Government intend to introduce this legislation, to lower the voting age, in the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible once this order has been made by the Privy Council. I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend is seriously misinformed on this matter. If he looks at the Smith commission’s report, he will see the principles that guided the commission, which included “no detriment” to other parts of the United Kingdom. That was one of the principles which all parties to the Smith commission agreed to and which informed the proposals with which it came forward. He is absolutely wrong to say that there was no regard to other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In which case, why on earth are we still retaining the Barnett formula and allowing Scotland to raise its own tax, if the principle was that there was “no detriment” to the rest of the United Kingdom? There was no representation from anyone from the rest of the United Kingdom; it was the political parties in Scotland looking at the position in Scotland.

My noble and learned friend, who is a very clever lawyer, is making a quite separate point. You can look at what is in the interests of Scotland in such a way that it creates no detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is not the same thing as looking at the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and considering the knock-on implications. That is a matter for this House and, more particularly, the other place but they are being given no opportunity to debate and consider it. In the case of the changes to local government there has been no opportunity for anyone in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament or anywhere else to consider that.

I return to my point. We had the Smith commission looking at Scotland. Then we had this ludicrous vow made in the last few days of the campaign—after I and many other people had voted, because many people voted by post. It was done without consultation with the party leaders in Scotland, hence the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland resigned and described her party as being treated like a branch office. Our leader Ruth Davidson, who did such an excellent job in the referendum campaign, was not consulted. This was three privy counsellors on the phone, cooking up a scheme. We have not had that style of government, where privy counsellors could consult each other and create legislative change of this kind, since the days of Wolf Hall. We should be very concerned indeed by the way in which this matter has been done and brought forward.

Then we had the childish timetable where the Government were required to respond from September by St Andrew’s Night, and then from St Andrew’s Night we had to have draft clauses by Burns Night. This is pantomime politics. Not only did we have these draft clauses by Burns Night but, a week later, we had the architect—the hero—of saving the union, Gordon Brown, telling us all that what he had produced and agreed by Burns Night was no longer satisfactory and that we needed to do something else. This is riding for trouble. We should consider constitutional matters carefully and they should carry consensus. We should consider the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole. It should never be driven by political expediency or short-term political consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Yes, I did. I voted out of sheer conviction that the right thing to do was maintain Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Stephen asked us to do a reality check on what we are about here. This is taking forward recommendations from the Smith commission. The Smith agreement is important, not least because it was endorsed by five political parties in the Scottish Parliament. Looking back, the Scottish Constitutional Convention engaged many parts of civic society in Scotland but, in terms of political parties, it included only the Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party. It did not include two large parties: the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party. The Calman commission, the recommendations of which led to the Scotland Act 2012, engaged the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as others, but it did not engage the Scottish National Party. Here we have an agreement that has been fed into by representatives of five parties, including the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. How on earth can he say it included the Scottish National Party, which repudiated it as soon as it was published?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is important to remember that the commission involved the Scottish National Party, which signed up to it. We are seeking, with this order, to implement one of the parts of that agreement. I have not heard anyone in this debate query whether we should be following this course. No one has acknowledged or faced up to the fact that, if this was done by primary legislation in a Bill after the general election, it would be almost impossible to do all the work required to get 16 and 17 year-olds onto the roll between Royal Assent—at the end of this year or even at the beginning of the next—and the election in May 2016. It was, therefore, necessary to do it by a Section 30 order. That order is what gave the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for the referendum itself. No one has gainsaid that this is an appropriate way to honour the Smith agreement.

My noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Lang talked about some of the important data protection issues. My noble friend acknowledged that we are seeking to put in place some ways to take care of these. The order will allow the Scottish Government to set up their own system of identity checking for 14 and 15 year-old attainers and it will be for them to decide how this will be put into effect. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks: the Scottish Government are familiar with the Data Protection Act and must abide by data protection legislation. I recall that this important issue was raised when the legislation for the referendum was being drawn up. I have not since heard any complaints that proper procedures were not put in place to address these important issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke of an apparent inconsistency on the question of supermajority. As my noble friend Lord Stephen pointed out, it does not matter so long as you get to the end result and it is the right one. My noble friend Lord Forsyth quoted from page 17 of the command paper. That quote—which is in a box—is from the Smith commission agreement. The agreement itself does not suggest that there should be a supermajority for this one measure of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds and I do not recall anyone doing so. I know the logic that my noble friend Lord Lang and his committee pointed to, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced very early on that we would deal separately with the power to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds and no one has suggested that the supermajority should apply to that. The Government’s position has not changed on that at any time.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the Government published draft clauses that provided for a supermajority in these circumstances, in line with the Smith commission proposals. I thought I had asked him, at the Dispatch Box, why on earth we were introducing the alien concept of supermajorities and that the Government had defended it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There is provision in the draft clauses for supermajorities covering a range of matters. The Smith commission recommended this but, so far as I can see, no one has ever suggested that it did so with regard to the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. The recommendation regarding extending the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections to 16 and 17 year-olds was a very separate one and we have proceeded on that basis. There has not been any switch in position, as has been suggested. As I indicated earlier, to include such a provision in the current order would involve detailed consideration on how to amend very key sections of the Scotland Act. For example, thought would have to be given to how the role of the Presiding Officer would be affected by this in deciding whether the provision is applicable and the relationship that the provision would have to the limits of the Parliament to make law. Given that there was never any dubiety about it, the better course was for the order to be in the simple form in which it is presented to your Lordships’ House today.

I fully acknowledge that it was not part of the recommendation that local government should be taken forward now. However, it makes good sense for practical purposes. The franchise for local government elections in Scotland is the same as that for Scottish parliamentary elections. I rather suspect that, if the Government had not done this, someone on the Constitution Committee might have said, “This is what you get if you legislate in haste. Does the Minister not appreciate that the franchise for local government is linked to the franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections? It will lead to considerable additional cost if they are separated”. It is a very practical thing to do and the timing is important. If this were to wait until primary legislation went through both Houses of Parliament and got Royal Assent, there would still need to be legislation done by the Scottish Parliament if it chose to. It would be very challenging to get that done, without breaking some of the timing rules, before the Scottish local elections in 2017.

I listened carefully to my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Lang. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned the referendum experience in a number of respects. Neither of my noble friends referred to the fact that 16 and 17 year-olds voted in the referendum on 18 September. I am not going to join those who thought that the whole referendum campaign was a great festival of democracy. Some of it was not very nice at all. Some noble Lords will recall messages that were not nice being tweeted and read out in our debates. However, people of all parties thought that the engagement of 16 and 17 year-olds worked. Schools held hustings and there was an opportunity for 16 and 17 year-olds to ask proper questions of MPs and MSPs from different sides. There was a turnout of 75%. If we have that turnout among those aged over 18—or 90, or whatever—in the forthcoming general election, it will be a significant improvement on 2010. Young people were not only involved and engaged: they turned out and may have set a lesson to the rest of us about how people might engage.

Therefore, the Smith commission agreement on this particular recommendation did not just come out of the air. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it is not as though, had Alex Salmond said, “Give us 15”, it would have been 15. I do not think it would have been; it was for 16 and 17 year-olds. The Smith commission was informed by that experience and by how those people had engaged.

It would be very odd if a number of people who could have voted, and possibly did vote, in the referendum were not allowed to vote in the 2016 election—as they would not be if this change does not take place. This agreement came forward and the Government, with the support of the Opposition, said that they would wish to see it happen. If we were suddenly to renege on that promise, the damage would be incalculable. It would be said that this is just the first of many other things that we would renege on. We are therefore asking the House to approve an order that transfers legislative competence and to do something that all parties in Scotland have asked for. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, it is welcome in Scotland. We should not stand in the way of that. I therefore commend the order to the House.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

No, but I will do so at length—I keep being interrupted—when we get to Amendment 2. I am simply making the point that the target set in the Bill is not the target set by the UN. On a later amendment, we can discuss the implications of that.

My second point is that if we are to put “a” duty on the Secretary of State or whether the Secretary of State has “the” duty in respect of “a” target or “the” target—

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

I apologise, but just point out that the second “the” would make it the duty of “a” Secretary of State.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If ever I am on a charge, I will make sure my noble and learned friend is there to defend me. If we are to look at the operation of a target and what its effect would be, I draw the House’s attention to the report of the National Audit Office published on 15 January this year. I do not know how many noble Lords have read the report but I very much hope that those who feel that they wish to support the Bill in the present form will take the opportunity to do so. The report, Managing the Official Development Assistance Target, is about how practical it is to have a target and what the management problems relating to it are. I hope that the noble Countess will accept that I am speaking very closely to the amendment.

I should apologise that I did not speak at Second Reading. I was here for it, but we were limited to five minutes at Second Reading to discuss this important Bill, and I felt that I should make way to let others have a little more time.

Scotland: Draft Legislation

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for repeating the Statement. He said that this is what the people of Scotland voted for, but it is certainly not what I voted for. I regard it less as a milestone; it is probably more likely to be a tombstone for the United Kingdom if we continue in this way by making piecemeal constitutional reform.

I wish to ask my and learned noble friend about the draft clauses in a constructive manner. Clause 4 introduces the extraordinary new concept of a “super-majority”, whereby matters can be passed by the Scottish Parliament only by a two-thirds majority. That includes, according to the draft clause,

“the persons entitled to vote as electors at an election for membership of the Parliament”.

As I understand it, we have just given the Scottish Parliament the power to alter the election franchise for 16 year-olds. Before the ink is even dry on this, we are already changing it. Why are we introducing this concept of a two-thirds majority being required to alter,

“the number of constituencies … the number of regions …the number of regional members”,

and,

“the systems by which members of the Parliament”,

are to be introduced? Is that going to apply to Westminster and the Welsh Assembly? This is a huge constitutional innovation. What is the justification for it?

To reflect the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, why is there nothing in these draft clauses that sets out how the Barnett formula funding will be affected by the implementation of these powers? Surely that has to be there in primary legislation so that there is no question about how that will operate. As to the narrative on the paper, all that it says about funding is that,

“the Scottish Government’s Barnett-based block grant will be reduced to reflect the tax revenues that the UK Government will forgo as a result of devolution”.

What on earth does that mean?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, picking up on that final point, it means what it says: if there is devolution of income tax, which we are proposing to implement, the UK Government—the Revenue and the Treasury—will not receive the income tax receipts from Scotland on earned income and therefore the block grant will be reduced accordingly. That will be indexed. Box 1 on page 29 of the Command Paper describes how this is intended to work in terms of what we have already passed with regard to the Scottish rate of income tax under the 2012 Act. The noble Lord will see how it is intended to work with regard to the proposal that Parliament has already passed, one that can proceed for income tax as a whole and, indeed, for other taxes.

With regard to the two-thirds majority, it is not such a novel procedure as my noble friend suggests, because, although I suspect that he opposes it, it was nevertheless passed by this House when it introduced the Fixed-term Parliaments Act early in this Parliament with regard to any early general elections that might be called in the other place. We are actually implementing what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, recommended, which is that for matters as fundamental as the franchise, the number of constituencies and the electoral system we will provide “an adequate check”, as he put it in his commission’s report, on the Scottish Parliament. After all, it is a unicameral Parliament and a Government of a single party should not ride roughshod over the interests of other parties on a simple majority and completely change the electoral system. That is why the commission believed that on matters as fundamental as that, given that that power is being transferred from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, there ought be an adequate safeguard—and that safeguard is a two-thirds super-majority.

Scotland: Devolution

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the House has heard a very important and comprehensive range of contributions on complex and interlinked constitutional issues. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to hear such a range of views and perspectives from all parts of our United Kingdom; it has been very important to hear views not just from Scotland but from England, north and south, as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland.

I was delighted to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, in his maiden speech. I understand that he is not only a Newcastle United fan but a participant in the Great North Run. No doubt that will allow him the stamina to take part in debates that go on for the best part of six hours. He summed up a recurring theme of our debate when he talked about the disconnect between politicians and voters that needed to be reduced. He entertained us and he informed us, and I know that the House looks forward very much to his contributions to your Lordships’ House in the future.

As noble Lords will have heard, the issues considered in this debate fall into three broad categories. The first relates to Scotland and the fulfilment of the joint commitment by the three party leaders to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament in light of the referendum no vote. The second category of issues relates to how to ensure that power is properly devolved and decentralised to all the nations, communities and individuals who comprise all parts of our United Kingdom. The third, separately but rightly—not as an alternative to devolution within England—considers how we might address the so-called West Lothian question, which has come about as a consequence of devolving power to specific parts of the United Kingdom.

I will address first the issue of the referendum in Scotland. It was legal and fair in its conduct and decisive in its outcome. It is important that we reflect on the points made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who highlighted the appalling treatment of Nick Robinson in a country which ought to take pride in the freedom of the press and of the media. My noble friends Lord Stephen and Lord Forsyth also highlighted some of the many real problems that were encountered during the referendum. We should not lose sight of these when we think of what kind of Scotland we want to see in the future.

Some noble Lords questioned the fact that the Scottish Parliament devised the referendum. It was important that the referendum was, as it were, made in Scotland. In its immediate aftermath, we heard today of the conspiracy theories that counters at polling stations were filling in blank ballot papers. If the referendum had been devised at Westminster, the view that it was all a trick and a conspiracy would still be echoing loud and clear. The referendum was devised by the Scottish Government—they had everything going for them, and they lost. That is what makes the result decisive.

The people of Scotland expect that the interests of 100% of Scotland within the United Kingdom are taken forward. No one is under any illusion that a no vote was a vote for the status quo or that, somehow or other, we are out of the woods. As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said—I think he spoke for many of us, myself included—our relief has been suffused with anxiety. As the noble Lord said, we are all seeking to achieve a strong and lasting settlement across the United Kingdom.

That is what we intend to do. The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition has already been put into practice. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas sought the reassurance that that would be adhered to. Even those who contributed to your Lordships’ debate, who were sceptical about the commitments made, nevertheless all agreed that it was essential that that promise is honoured. It has been honoured. The Command Paper setting out the parties’ positions was due by the end of October. In fact, it was published two weeks ago. It is continuing to be honoured with the work of the Smith commission. It will be honoured because we have undertaken that the heads of agreement, which we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, announcing, will be taken forward with clauses by Burns Night.

Equally, the Scottish National Party should remember the statements it made ahead of the referendum that it expected it to be a once-in-a generation or once-in-a lifetime event. Nicola Sturgeon, whom I congratulate on becoming, as she will become, the First Minister of Scotland, said one year ahead of the referendum—on 18 September 2013—that this was a once-in-a lifetime opportunity for Scotland. If our parties are expected to honour commitments, the least we can expect is that the Scottish National Party will honour its commitment to the people of Scotland that this is for once in a generation.

The commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September. His terms of reference make it clear that the recommendations will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers, strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Last week, he convened the first meeting of cross-party talks to reach agreement on proposals for further devolution. All 10 nominees from each of the represented political parties attended. The noble Lord has said that they have,

“committed to work together to achieve a positive outcome to this process”.

The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Foulkes, emphasised the importance of this being, as it were, a principles-based approach rather than a horse-trading approach. I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, indicated after that first meeting. The parties have agreed a set of principles which include, but are by no means limited to, forming a substantial and cohesive package of powers, enabling the delivery of outcomes that are meaningful to the people of Scotland, and strengthening the Scottish devolution settlement and the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, including the Parliament’s levels of financial accountability. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lord Glasgow, sought an express assurance that that would be within the context of the United Kingdom honouring the outcome of the referendum. There is also a principle that it will not cause detriment to the United Kingdom as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts.

However, this process is not just about the parties. The referendum saw an opening up of civic engagement, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has made it clear that he wants to hear from all the various groups to ensure that the recommendations that he produces are informed by views from right across Scottish society. By St Andrew’s Day, he intends to publish heads of agreement. As I have indicated, the Government are committed to turning these recommendations into draft clauses by Burns Night 2015. It is a demanding timetable but that is because the demand is there, in Scotland, to see change delivered, and it is a demand that we intend to meet.

Scotland will have further powers but we believe that that must be within the context of Scotland being a part of the United Kingdom. It must not start to unravel the fabric that binds us together, because that would be a denial of the outcome of the referendum. However, I very much share the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Elder, that the exercise of these powers is vital to the whole range of devolved responsibilities. It would be very refreshing to get the political debate back on to how we improve education, health, transport, agriculture, sport and local government in Scotland.

Not surprisingly, the question of funding was raised. I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who referred to the “ATM approach”—a point reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—where there has been spending by the Scottish Parliament without responsibility for raising the funding. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed highlighted that fiscal responsibility gap. One of the objects of those who served on the Calman commission—as I did, along with my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, and the noble Lord, Lord Elder—was to address that and to ensure that there was greater accountability for spending. Therefore, with the additional tax powers come additional responsibility and accountability.

We have been clear as a Government that the act of devolution in and of itself should not result in a change in the budget, but it is important to note that this is also one of the key principles highlighted by the Smith commission. However, we have been equally clear—this addresses a point raised by my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market—that if decisions are taken by the Scottish Government which result in a lower tax yield than the current arrangements, the Scottish Government will have to take spending decisions in line with that reduced tax yield. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will put me right on this but I think that the Azores judgment means that where tax is fully devolved and there is a shortfall, it cannot be topped up.

The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord McAvoy, made the point that, as more tax-raising powers are devolved, the amount of money transferred to Scotland under the Barnett formula will decline.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can my noble friend just deal with the point in the so-called vow where it says that our resources will be shared,

“equitably across all four nations”?

How is that consistent with keeping Barnett? Can he also deal with the notion that, by giving the Scottish Parliament more tax-raising powers, Barnett can be phased out? If the tax base in Scotland is lower than the uplift in the Barnett formula, compared to the average for the United Kingdom, how will that gap be filled?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, an important issue which was always there but was articulated well, not least by the former Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, in the latter stages, was the notion of the social union; the equitable arrangement within our United Kingdom where, if one part of the kingdom is thriving, there is a transfer of resources to a part that is not doing so well. That is one of the important things that binds our United Kingdom together and I see that as an equitable distribution of resources within it.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I can confirm that there were no prior discussions with the United Kingdom Government on that matter. Finally—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Surely my noble friend is not telling the House that in the event of Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom, that would not be a matter that would require legislation approved by both Houses of Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I made that clear earlier: we are talking about an interim Bill. As I indicated earlier, in response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton, yes, we have indicated that there would have to be legislation. The scope and extent of it would very much depend on the terms of the agreement reached; they may not have to be very extensive. However, I confirm that there would have to be legislation to bring about independence. I hope that that is clear and unequivocal. My noble friend looks doubtful but I am saying that there would have to be legislation to bring about independence.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That is a bit weaselly, because it suggests that a deal could be done between the two Governments and then there would be a kind of confirmatory piece of legislation. If we are talking about breaking up the United Kingdom, this is a matter not just for the Executive but for Parliament as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. I think that the question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth related to the Act enacting independence rather than independence itself. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is right: what happens after independence is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. What happens between a potential yes vote on 18 September and the date of independence is a different matter because the present law of the United Kingdom would still apply. As I believe that the present law of the United Kingdom, including the Scotland Act, does make provision for Section 30 orders, the orders would have to be passed—we are not changing the procedure of them—by both Houses of this Parliament, as well as by the Scottish Parliament.

I have also indicated to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that there are legal issues and doubts about whether that would be an effective way of doing it, because there is a concept that we cannot use secondary legislation to effect an outcome that is totally contrary to the intention of the original legislation—as Hadfield has it. The original legislation was not enacted to establish an independent Scotland, so using a Section 30 order to bring about de facto independence could be challengeable. That ultimately would be a matter for the courts, so I will not put it any higher than that; but such a course of action could be fraught. I hope that that is clear.

On responding to the particular points about the interim, I will bear in mind what is being sought.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, is he saying that there is no question of a Section 30 order being used to effect this?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Yes, that is what I said. It would not be the right way and would be susceptible to legal challenge.

The Scottish Government have set out proposals that contradict the agreement set out in the Electoral Commission statement. The Electoral Commission statement makes it very clear, and both Governments agreed, that as far as reserved matters are concerned, the United Kingdom Government would continue to be responsible for them. That is what the law is, and it will continue to be so until the date of independence.

I shall conclude briefly. We have had a very good debate, and we have been told to be positive. Such has been the success of the United Kingdom, however, that the yes campaign perhaps makes the best case for us. If one looks at the Scottish Government’s White Paper and at the yes campaign, one sees that such is the success of the United Kingdom, they want to keep much of it. They want to keep the monarchy; they want to keep the currency; they want to keep the Bank of England; they want to keep the National Lottery; they want to keep the NHS blood transfusion and transplant service; they want to keep the Royal Mint; they want to keep the research councils; they want to keep the air and maritime accident investigation branches; they want to keep the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; they want to keep the Green Investment Bank; they want to keep the Met Office; they want to keep the Hydrographic Office; they want to keep the UK benefits system; they want to keep the DVLA; they even want to keep “Strictly Come Dancing” and “EastEnders”. What better advert can there be for the United Kingdom than how much of it the independence-minded nationalists actually want to embrace?

We have shown that we have a remarkable partnership of nations. For all our achievements and all our successes, and for all the support we give each other in difficult days, we have a United Kingdom of which we can be legitimately proud.

I apologise—I should have said more about the overwhelming challenge of a new United Kingdom. I had quite a bit to say on that. I will only say that I have heard noble Lords. Obviously, I cannot give a commitment tonight about a new convention for the whole of the United Kingdom, but I hear the comments from all round the House—cross-party and cross-country, and not just about the United Kingdom but about decentralisation. These are matters on which my colleagues in government will wish to reflect with the seriousness with which they were put forward in this debate.

I have tried to answer as many questions as I can. I sincerely hope that on the key date of 19 September we will be looking forward and not having to deal with some of the issues raised in the admirable report from my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton and his committee.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is important that people not only from the diaspora but from other parts of the United Kingdom speak up and say how valued Scotland is as part of a family of nations, which is one of the great success stories of modern history. Scotland is obviously better within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is also better with Scotland in it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that the answer of the Scottish Nationalists to my noble friend Lord Flight’s question is symptomatic of the fantasy politics that they are putting forward? When he asks what the position of Scottish MPs would be in the House of Commons if they were elected after a vote for independence, their official policy is that we should postpone the date of the general election until 2016.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I did in fact notice that. I am not quite sure what it says about democracy—that people should be denied the chance to elect new Members of Parliament. I also bear in mind that the date that they set for this referendum was after this Parliament had agreed to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which had already set the date for the next general election.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 5th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thought that the Leader of the House of Commons was part of the usual channels. This would have to be done with the collaboration of both Houses, but I am saying that we will reflect on the matter. I cannot go further in making any commitment today, other than what I have already said.

My noble friend chose a debate specifically on the date, because I think he had to put his application into a ballot before the White Paper had been published. It may be worth reflecting on the fact that the date may be about the only thing in the White Paper that had not previously been in the public domain—and even that was leaked about two days before publication. We had already been told that the date would be in March 2016, so I suspect the only new information was the specific date of 24 March, which I think is the anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth I, and therefore of the union of the Crowns. Indeed, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose reminded us when he talked about the Earl of Seafield and the end of the auld sang, it is also the date on which the previous Scottish Parliament last sat. However, I rather suspect that that was an ex post facto justification that some people gave for that date, rather than stating the reason that, as my noble friend pointed out, it will be the start of the 2016 Scottish election campaign.

I take the point that even if Scotland were—heaven forbid—to vote yes, actually naming your cut-off point does not seem the best way to go about negotiations. One of the things that has been evident from this debate, if not necessarily from the White Paper, is that a considerable amount of negotiation will have to take place. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Sometimes we have heard people in the Scottish Government compare this White Paper to the 1997 White Paper produced by the Labour Government, which paved the way to the referendum on devolution. However, there is a world of difference between a White Paper produced by a Government, which reflected a constitutional convention that had met in public over many years and had achieved a consensus, and a White Paper that is the product of a single party behind closed doors, and is dependent not just on the Government of the rest of the United Kingdom, but on other member states of the European Union, members of NATO and numerous other countries. It is important to make the point that this White Paper has no guarantee of delivery. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, strong on assertion but perhaps not so strong on argument.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the fact that it is sometimes said by some Scottish National Party people that there would be two new countries, and the rest of the United Kingdom would have to negotiate lots of other treaties. However, the first Scotland analysis paper, which the Government produced in February, examined the constitutional position. We did so on the basis of advice from Professor James Crawford of Cambridge University and Professor Boyle of Edinburgh University—two outstanding experts in the field. Their analysis—one which represents the view of the United Kingdom Government—is that the rest of the United Kingdom would be a continuing state, with all the rights and responsibilities such as permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations and membership of the European Union on the terms that have been negotiated, and Scotland would be a new state.

It sometimes seems rather odd to me that a party that aspires to independence finds it awkward to admit that it wants to be a new state. I thought that was the whole purpose. Scotland would be a new state, and it would have to enter into a whole series of different negotiations, including seeking membership of NATO and the European Union. If I may pick up another point, it was certainly rather a novel approach—perhaps this is one of the other things in the White Paper that we had not quite anticipated—to refer to Article 48 of the TFEU. The view of the United Kingdom Government—again, this was set out in the first paper of the Scotland analysis series—is that Article 49 would represent the appropriate way forward. We can have a debate as to whether Scotland would have to come out to go back in, or whether there would be a possibility, following a yes vote, of negotiations taking place during that period. However, the important point, which was reflected in the speeches by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is that there would have to be negotiations—and we cannot predict with any certainty what would be in those negotiations. The only thing that is certain is the uncertainty.

Arguments have been made about Schengen, about membership of the euro and about the rebate. Approaching this from the perspective of Croatia or Bulgaria, we would be talking about giving a rebate to a country that the First Minister has said would be the eighth wealthiest in the world. I also think that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the Scottish Government as to the nature of the rebate. They have said, “As the budget has been set for the European Union for 2014-20, we will decide between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom how the rebate is split up”. I know that there are people in this House who are much more knowledgeable about this matter than me but my understanding is that it is not a constant, annual lump sum that can be divvied up or shared; it is a function of the United Kingdom’s respective shares in the EU economy and receipts. Any change in the size of the United Kingdom, for example as a result of independence, would automatically be reflected in the rebate calculation. Therefore, there would not be a Scottish share of the UK rebate to be handed over. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the Scottish Government in their White Paper as to what they are talking about.

As regards currency, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is highly unlikely that there would be a currency union. That was reflected by other former Chancellors, including Alistair Darling, and the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. I think it also has been said by the Shadow Chancellor. Therefore, while we get an answer to whether Scotland could take part in the Eurovision Song Contest, we do not get an answer as to what the currency position would be if a monetary union was not agreed with the rest of the United Kingdom. Because questions such as that are ducked, the Scottish people will not be given, as a result of this White Paper or from the Scottish Government, the proper information with which they can make up their minds—our minds—when voting on 18 September next year.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk talked about defence and the primary importance of the security of the realm. We believe that the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom benefits from a full range of UK defence capabilities and activities. Scotland has greater security and influence with the United Kingdom’s geopolitical influence, which few states of similar size to Scotland can match. In addition, there is the important defence industry in Scotland. On the idea of joint procurement, as far as I am aware, since the Second World War, no complex naval vessels have been built outside the United Kingdom. If the rest of the United Kingdom should start building these vessels outside the UK, that could not automatically go to Scotland. There would have to be open competition, even in these circumstances. My noble friend is absolutely right to stress the defence implications of independence, but there are defence benefits from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.

The 2015 election was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. In answer to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, last Thursday, I had a question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth on what would happen after the vote on independence in September 2014 and whether Scottish MPs would have to leave at that point. I think that that is when I said that they would not need to do so. Obviously, it would be a matter for Parliament to address what would happen in 2016, although I cannot honestly see how people could represent constituencies or a country that no longer belongs to the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not see how that could happen, or how Parliament would deal with that or with the intervening period between the elections in 2015 and 2016. Should that ever happen, I think it would be a matter for both Houses.

I certainly picked up the point made by my noble friend about the idea that we should somehow postpone the United Kingdom general election. Given that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was on the statute book before the date of the referendum was announced, the Scottish Government had full notice of it. I find it somewhat preposterous that for some reason people in the rest of the United Kingdom should be denied their democratic opportunity to select their Members of Parliament to facilitate a negotiation.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Will the Minister deal with the point about the Civil Service Code?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend raised an important point on paragraph 14 of the Civil Service Code. When a similar issue was raised during the Scotland Bill debate, I said that, when questions are asked about breaches of the code, there is a process for dealing with that. I do not think that it is appropriate for a Minister at the Dispatch Box to pass judgment on that when there are proper processes. I note what my noble friend says and I am sure that it will be noted by those to whom these matters might properly be addressed. I think my noble friend reflected on the positive things about the union. It was also said by my noble friend Lord Steel.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan talked about a United Kingdom convention and my noble friend Lord Purvis talked about policies of how we might look to the future in our constitutional arrangements. It is important that we look to the future. We should do so and record the strengths of our United Kingdom; namely, those of family and kinship, which were mentioned by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Crickhowell. We should also look at what has been achieved over many years.

Just before I came into the Chamber, my attention was drawn to the second leader in today’s Times. It states:

“Whatever Scotland’s future, it should be a source of pride to everyone in the United Kingdom that for centuries we have made a state of many nations work so well. We have lived together in peace and harmony, never losing our distinct identity yet also forging one together. And we have been strong together, through centuries of continental and global conflict. None of this should be pushed to one side in favour of an argument dominated by oil revenues”.

That is profound advice. I believe that when it comes to it, people will recognise that Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland as part of it. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, will die British rather than as RUK.

Glasgow Helicopter Crash

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his Statement and for the tribute which he rightly paid to the emergency services. Without in any way anticipating the results of the inquiry, it seems that rather a lot of helicopters fall out of the sky these days. We have seen it in the North Sea and not a stone’s throw from here. Would this not be a good time perhaps to review the maintenance regime that applies to helicopters and the rules that surround it? I appreciate that this was a police helicopter and that we do not know the circumstances. However, should we not look at some kind of review of the safety and maintenance standards that are required of helicopters that fly over heavily populated urban areas?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. He highlights the fact that there have been some helicopter crashes and fatalities in recent times. Over a long period of time the safety record has generally been good. However, I am sure the whole House will agree that any accident must be thoroughly investigated if lessons can be learnt. It is also important to remind ourselves that helicopters fly many different types of operations and that a helicopter taking large numbers of passengers out to installations in the North Sea is somewhat different from the operation that was undertaken by police and other emergency helicopters in this situation. I am not sure that a generic inquiry would necessarily be the best way forward. However, it is important that there is a thorough investigation of the various accidents that have happened. I am in no doubt that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and other relevant authorities will try to ensure that that thorough investigation takes place so that we can learn any lessons that are appropriate.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 28th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think each of the United Kingdom parties has its own arrangements for looking forward to what would happen in the event of a no vote, but first we have to campaign and win a no vote. The United Kingdom Government have already published, and will continue to publish, some substantial documents analysing Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, the benefits we derive from being in the United Kingdom and the problems and difficulties that would arise if we became independent.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, in the event that Scotland votes to secede from the United Kingdom next September, will the general election still take place in Scotland in May of the following year? If so, at what point will those Scottish MPs elected to the House of Commons be asked to leave? If it is before the general election, would it not result in the disintegration of the coalition and an overall majority for the Conservative Party?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there is no end to the ingenuity of my noble friend. Those who have been elected to this Parliament in the other place have received their Writ of Summons. I do not think they have any clause in it that tells them to go. In what we both agree would be the unhappy event of Scotland deciding to leave the United Kingdom, there is no legislation that would stop the general election in 2015 applying throughout the United Kingdom. Those who advocate independence will have to negotiate with the rest of the United Kingdom, and there can be no guarantee of what the United Kingdom Government would be post May 2015.

The Economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

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

I hope that my noble friend will accept that it is the Scottish Government, not the Scotland Office.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

As my noble and learned friend knows, I am still stuck in the past on some of these devolutionary aspects. He is absolutely right. I am referring to the Scottish Government—or the Scottish Executive as they were quite rightly called until he changed that in an Act that I spent quite a lot of time opposing in this House—and the way they behave. My noble and learned friend—I am sure he will not be embarrassed if I say this—was invited to speak at, I think, the 25th anniversary—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It was the 50th.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

He was invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of Loganair. My noble and learned friend must have been a very good customer of Loganair when he represented his constituency so well. He was asked to do that but an official from the Scottish Government rang Loganair and said, “We understand that you have Lord Wallace speaking at this dinner; we think it should be a Scottish Minister”, and it withdrew the invitation. I have no doubt it was thinking about the financial support it receives for its airlines from the Scottish Government. This is the kind of brazen way in which the Scottish Government operate. Are we surprised that few businessmen were prepared to come to give evidence to the committee? The only great nationalist-supporting businessman with any credibility in Scotland who agreed to come and speak to the committee was Brian Souter, who has built a very successful business, but at the last moment—literally days beforehand—he cried off because he did not feel able to do so.

A climate of fear is operating in Scotland. It comes from having a single party dominating a Parliament, without an upper Chamber of this kind and without very much accountability from the Scottish media. Despite that, the First Minister has found it extremely difficult to get cheerleaders for his campaign. He started off with celebrities, all of whom seemed either to live abroad or pay no tax in this country. He has got so desperate to find celebrities for his cause that he is now having to recruit the dead. Only this week we heard from Alex Salmond that Robert Burns would vote yes in the referendum. He quoted these lines from Burns as conclusive proof:

“We’re bought and sold for English gold—

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”.

The “rogues in a nation” are not in this part of the United Kingdom; I think they may be north of the border. Of course, that is a reference to how the union came into being in the first place. We should remember how that happened. It came into being because of a financial crisis: something like a quarter of the money in circulation had been invested in the Darien scheme and the Scottish economy was no longer able to sustain that level of financial shock. The Scottish economy could not get access to the single market that was England and her Commonwealth. It was a trade deal. From the English point of view, it was a way of ensuring the succession of the Protestant monarchy, which was a matter of some controversy and of great national security because of the Jacobites.

This union came into being on the basis of maintaining financial security and defence. They are the two matters that come out of this report as being threatened absolutely by the break-up of the United Kingdom now—from Scotland’s point of view, not England’s. The size of the Scottish economy relative to the English one makes it less important for England. Why would Scotland want to give up access to a single market—the rest of the United Kingdom—where most of its goods and services are sold? Why would it, after what we have been through since 2008, wish to remove itself from the security of the Bank of England, the Treasury and a larger country? Why on earth would it want to become so dependent on the revenue from North Sea oil, which, as the report points out, is a very substantial part of the revenue for Scotland as an independent nation, whereas as part of the United Kingdom it is a smaller part and therefore less vulnerable to fluctuations in the oil price? If that sounds like an academic argument, the tax revenue in 2012, as set out in the report, was £6.5 billion. That is 40% less than the previous year. The lack of stability, which dependency on North Sea oil would bring, makes the economic consequences for people living in Scotland very uncertain indeed.

Then we have financial services—financial services that depend on the rest of the United Kingdom for most of their customers, and which also depend on having the security of the Bank of England and the whole apparatus that we have seen working so effectively. As my noble friend pointed out, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the HBOS part of Lloyds account for 1,254% of GDP for Scotland as an independent country. That makes Iceland look as if it was in a very secure position when the financial crisis came along.

When confronted with these issues, answers come there none. On the question of the security of the Bank of England, we are told that it will be fine because, “We will have a representative on the Bank of England and the Bank of England will still stand guarantee”. Why would any English taxpayer wish to put their money on the line for a foreign country called Scotland? This is Walter Mitty economics coming from the First Minister of Scotland, who refused to come to the committee to justify his view.

For those who think that there is some easy way out of this from North Sea oil, there is also the whole question of the decommissioning costs, estimated at some £30 billion and which have to be met by relief on the tax that would otherwise be levied on those oil revenues. Again, answer comes there none, except that the English should pay for the decommissioning because they had the benefit of the revenue in the early years. The lines that are being put are, “We can keep the monarchy and be independent, we can keep the welfare system and have the pensions and welfare administered by the English but be independent, and we can keep the security of the Bank of England”. They are nonsense lines and they are not being properly debated in Scotland as they should be. That is the danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, pointed out, when things happen on the basis of emotion.

For those who want to see the future, the Minister very unwisely championed the Scotland Act through this Parliament. We are already seeing the first effects of what will happen. The Scottish Government now have the power to set stamp duty. They have just issued a consultation document in Scotland. They are refusing to say what the levels of stamp duty will be until after the referendum—I cannot think why. Everyone in the House will know that stamp duty on houses up to a threshold of £250,000 is 1% in the United Kingdom. In the consultation paper, the Scottish Government propose, as an example, that stamp duty should increase to 7.5% on any amount over £180,000 and 9.5% on properties worth more than £250,000. That is the first effect of these tax-raising powers. To say that an independent Scotland, with the volatility of North Sea oil revenue and all the other matters that I have pointed to that would damage the economy, would be able to reduce tax and not add to it is extraordinary.

The Scottish Government are also, even now, setting up their own inland revenue called Revenue Scotland. We will have two sets of bodies collecting tax north of the border. It is being set up specifically to collect this new land and property tax—this mansion tax that is being imposed on the Scottish people.

I am conscious that time is moving on. I started with a quotation from Robert Burns, which Alex Salmond claimed as his own. I have my own quotation, which I will try to translate later for those who may find some of it a little obscure. It is from the address to the Dumfries volunteers:

“O let us not, like snarling curs,

In wrangling be divided,

Till, slap! come in an unco loun,

And wi’ a rung decide it!

Be Britain still to Britain true,

Amang ourselves united;

For never but by British hands

Maun British wrangs be righted!”.

That echoes the sentiments that are included in this report and is a clear endorsement that Burns was on the side of the Unionists.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, first, I welcome today’s debate discussing the important report from your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee. I thank all committee members, but I thank in particular the committee chairman, my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, who introduced the debate. Although I pay tribute to all who have contributed to the debate, perhaps I may pick out the noble Lords, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, Lord Hollick, Lord Lipsey, Lord West and Lord Davies of Oldham, on the basis that they are non-Scots. In making the case of the United Kingdom, I think it is very important that we hear voices from outwith Scotland saying how important the union is for all of us.

We have heard valuable contributions. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it is perhaps unfortunate that there is no representative of the Scottish National Party in this House. That is the party’s choice and a matter for it, but it would have been useful, not least to answer some of the legitimate questions put. My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood interrupted my noble friend Lord MacGregor to say that it was odd that, having had two years since we knew that this referendum was coming, the Scottish Government had not come up with the answers. My noble friend Lord Forsyth hit the nail on the head when he said that it has been Scottish National Party policy for more than 50 years. One might have expected that, as it has been its policy, it might have had some answers, rather than either the deafening silence or the change of position which we sometimes get.

Perhaps I may say something about the tone of the debate that we expect in Scotland. It is important that we have a rational and well reasoned debate. I have heard the concerns expressed by a number of your Lordships from all parts of the House about the fears expressed to the committee. I will not comment further, but I can confirm the withdrawal of my invitation to a 50th anniversary dinner referred to by my noble friend Lord Forsyth.

It is healthy when we get contributions from people who do not necessarily have any axe to grind. My noble friend Lord Lyell declared his interest as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. That institute, with its distinguished history, has indicated that it will not come out on one side or the other but has already shown its willingness to ask pertinent questions, not least with regard to pensions. It is important that bodies such as that, which have a track record and can be seen as having professional status in Scotland but are not backing one side or the other, make such a contribution.

As we approach the referendum in September next year, it is important that both sides of the debate are robust in their arguments but conduct them with respect and, echoing what has been said, with information. I welcome the fact that a number of your Lordships who have contributed to the debate have commented on the Scotland analysis papers. The three that have been published so far are fairly heavy tomes. I can confirm that another will be published in the next few weeks. To inform the debate, we as a Government have undertaken that programme. There will be further papers on the United Kingdom’s position in the world, the protection of our citizens and defence, the economic benefits of the United Kingdom, and as my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary said in replying to the committee, on issues such as energy and welfare, as well as the important issue of pensions, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lyell.

In addition, I have heard the disappointment expressed about the Ministry of Defence, but it has contributed to a number of other Select Committees. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is to give evidence to the Defence Select Committee next week. There have been reports by the Scottish Affairs Committee, to which evidence has been given. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, mentioned postal services. I understand that the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee in the other place is conducting an inquiry into the implications of Scottish independence for business, higher education, research and postal services. Undoubtedly the Government will give evidence to that committee.

With the possible exception of the constitutional issues raised in the comments of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, there was general unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. Also mentioned in one or two contributions was that it is important that we are not complacent. I assure your Lordships that the Government are not complacent. Earlier today I heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to the referendum in Quebec. It is difficult to draw too many parallels, but he reflected on the fact that the federalists thought that it was in the bag and won by 1% only. We had the benefit of a lecture in Dover House last month by Monsieur Jean Chrétien, who was Prime Minister of Canada, and we certainly got the message from him. That will keep us on our toes. We know that this is a battle that we must win with both head and heart.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does my noble and learned friend not think that it is a trifle complacent of the Ministry of Defence, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, to say that it is not looking at any contingency plans for the future of Trident, because it takes the view that Scotland is going to remain part of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord West, knows, makes contingencies for many things. As for saying any more on issues of our nuclear deterrent and matters of national security, I am not prepared to go there.

The noble Lord, Lord McFall, referred to Michael Ignatieff and his point that we can have different identities. There is a British identity, although I appreciate that some, if not all, feel a European identity, and there is a Scottish identity. Having made my adopted home in Orkney for the past 30 years, I can share and feel affinity with that Orcadian heritage. I am sure that the point that was being made was that we do not want to choose between these. What we wish to secure by winning this referendum is that we are not forced to make that choice—something that I reflect on after my noble friend Lord Caithness’s comment as to whether I would have to choose between an Orcadian and Scottish identity and a British identity and affinity. Issues of the heart will be involved, but this debate has focused on the importance of the arguments of the head as well.

There are important things that we can say. The United Kingdom Government are producing an increasing amount of information, and I will say more about the communication of that later. We know that the United Kingdom is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political unions in history. It is a union that has brought economic benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom, because taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the United Kingdom.

We know that Scotland and the rest of the UK are economically well placed as members of a single market and a single currency area in the current United Kingdom arrangements. Data published by the Scottish Government suggested that in 2011 nearly 60% of Scottish exports went to the rest of the United Kingdom and that 70% per cent of Scottish imports came from the rest of the United Kingdom. We know that Scottish independence would create an international border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. International experience shows that there is a border effect. It reduces flows of product, money and people.

We know that the current currency and monetary policy arrangements within the United Kingdom serve Scotland well. Perhaps I can take issue with what my noble friend Lord Caithness said about the First Minister setting out his case very clearly. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out, within the past five years the Scottish National Party has supported the euro. We were told that sterling was a millstone around Scotland’s neck, but then it supported sterling, either by a currency union or by so-called sterlingisation. Some people in the yes campaign have called for an independent Scottish currency.

The paper that we produced on the currency identified the four options. First, there is an independent Scottish currency. Secondly, there is the euro. Thirdly, there is a sterlingisation, where the Scots keep sterling but are not part of a formal monetary union. Fourthly, there is formal monetary union. None of these is as successful and workable as having our current arrangements within the United Kingdom. The alternative currency arrangements open to an independent Scotland would be less economically suitable for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

We know that the Chancellor, when launching the Treasury paper on currency, said:

“The SNP asserts that it would be in everyone’s interests for an independent Scotland to keep the pound as part of a Eurozone-style sterling zone. … Let’s … look at the evidence… Could a situation where an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK share the pound and the Bank of England be made to work? Frankly, it’s unlikely”.

While the Scottish Government might like to tell people what they think that they want to hear, we are focused on telling people what the evidence says, what the options are and what the consequences of those options are. You do not have to know too much about economics or look too far to see that the eurozone cannot exactly be described as a dream currency union. This was reflected in what my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said. It was mentioned too by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who said that you cannot have monetary union without fiscal union. Countries with the euro are witnessing closer fiscal integration at a time when the Scottish Government would have you believe that you could sign up to a currency union and achieve political and fiscal independence.

It is not just Scotland’s overall economy and currency that we know about. We know that in Scotland we have a strong and vibrant financial services industry as part of the United Kingdom. Financial services contributed £8.8 billion to the Scottish economy in 2010, more than 8% of Scottish onshore economic activity. The sector directly employs 85,000 people in Scotland and a further 100,000 indirectly, which is around 7% of total Scottish employment. We know that our firms and individuals benefit from a world-leading financial services sector and a large integrated domestic market. Our consumers benefit from the UK’s protection and compensation bodies that are able to pool risk across a large and diverse market.

Noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have reflected on the fact that the United Kingdom Government came to the rescue when the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS experienced their catastrophic difficulties. In evidence to your Lordships’ committee, Mr David Nish, the CEO of Standard Life, said that what he benefited from today was having a single regulator in a geographical area and that he did not think that there was a working model of cross-border regulation that he could find.

I pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Lyell that 70% of pension products bought by Scottish consumers are from firms based in the rest of the United Kingdom, and work by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland shows that if Scotland were to become independent, the,

“potential impact on funding requirements for employers operating defined benefit or hybrid schemes across the UK is likely to be substantial”.

Another important industry for Scotland is oil and gas. My noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Hollick, referred to this. They made the point that wherever this valuable resource is, the revenues are volatile and in long-term decline. The UK has a broad and diverse enough economy to be able to absorb this volatility, but it would loom larger in a Scottish economy that would be less able to absorb it. My noble friend Lord Forsyth asserted that the First Minister would clearly want the United Kingdom to bear the decommissioning costs and quoted the Minister who, when asked on 25 April last year whether Scotland would take these costs on, said that the answer was yes. That contrasted with what his Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, said on 17 April, which was that the UK had a moral and certainly a legal obligation to be responsible for the decommissioning of these rigs. Within a period of 10 days, there had been a diametrically conflicting view of what the position would be on these costs. It is incumbent on the Scottish Government to be a bit more direct in giving answers to these questions.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend again, but is it not a matter of choice because the decommissioning costs are given by tax relief on the tax revenues? If the oil becomes part of Scotland’s assets, it is not a matter of choice whether it meets the decommissioning costs; they would have to be met because they would be part of the tax regime. Otherwise, it would be too expensive to take the oil out of the ground, in which case the revenue would be zero.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes an important point. I am simply pointing out that the Scottish Government do not seem to have worked out which way it is. I am not trying to offload a moral or legal obligation on to the United Kingdom.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, mentioned the assets and liabilities. Clearly the division of liabilities and assets would be a significant part of any negotiations to create a new state. In the case of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, it would have to be settled by negotiation. Unpicking the United Kingdom’s institutional and governmental infrastructure framework would be a huge task, and it is impossible to say with confidence what the outcome would be. Although there are some general principles of international law that could impact upon this matter, there is no clear set of rules in international practice about the precise allocation of national debt in these circumstances, but there would be an expectation that an independent Scottish state would take on an equitable share of the UK’s national debt. How an equitable share would be calculated is open to question, although I think the Finance Secretary, Mr John Swinney, accepted that there would be that obligation when he gave evidence to your Lordships’ committee.

Europe and Scotland’s place in Europe also featured in the report and in our debate. Again, we know that if Scotland left this union, the rest of the United Kingdom would be a continuator state. That was set out very clearly in the first Scotland analysis paper that we produced. The United Kingdom as a continuing state would maintain the same set of terms and conditions, rights and responsibilities that we enjoy today in Europe, NATO and the G8. Scotland would be a new state and would have to seek to join all those international bodies. That is a fact that the Scottish Government initially sought to deny. With regard to Europe, they said it would be seamless, automatic membership. Now, in the face of the evidence, they publicly accept that they would have to negotiate their way in. We could debate this. There are differing views about how that negotiation would take place, but there can be no doubt that it would be a very difficult negotiation. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, pointed out, there would be no guarantee of an exemption from euro membership, or from Schengen, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, stated. My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about the share of the rebate. It is impossible to say what the share of the rebate would be or whether the European Union would even grant any rebate to the Scottish Government. It would be a matter of negotiation not with the United Kingdom Government, although as a member state we would have a part to play in it, but, after the accession of Croatia next week, with 27 other Governments, and there is no guarantee about the outcome of such negotiations.

Defence was quite properly raised by a number of noble Lords. In our responses to other Select Committees we have sought to give some indication of the number of defence-related jobs in Scotland. How many would be lost would to some extent depend on the configuration of Scottish defence. My noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned the report this week from the Scotland Institute, which did not really offer much about what the profile of Scottish Armed Forces would be. As at 1 April 2103, there were more than 11,000 regular armed forces and 4,000 Ministry of Defence civilian personnel in around 50 sites throughout the country. Following the Defence Secretary’s announcement on 5 March about the Army basing plan, by 2020, there will be some 12,500 regular armed forces based here and Scotland will be home to all the Royal Navy’s submarines, one of the Army’s seven adaptable force brigades and one of the three RAF fast jet main operating bases.

With regard to civilian defence jobs, the Scottish Government’s agency Scottish Development International estimates that the defence sector in Scotland employs more than 12,600 people. The building of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, initially on the Clyde and with further construction in Rosyth, underlines the commitment to defence jobs in Scotland. We can confidently say that that could not by any stretch of the imagination be maintained at that level in an independent Scotland.

I recognise that calls for more information have come in this debate. We are committed to setting out facts and evidence to ensure that people take an informed decision. I take the point that we, not just as a Government, but all of us who support the union, have an obligation to go out and sell the message. It may be that these weighty tomes are a bit weighty for leaflets or for a snappy column in some of our newspapers. Certainly, that has been represented to us, and the tenor of some of the contributions to this debate was that we should think of ways in which we can put out a more popular version. We are aware that these requests have been made, and we will give consideration to that.

Ministers have a particular responsibility, but others can get out and talk. On Friday, I will be speaking to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry in Aberdeen on constitutional issues. I know when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland saw the report about the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and those who did not think that they were informed enough, he said—he will probably not like me for this—that he would be happy to go to talk to some of the chambers of commerce up and down Scotland. If anyone is listening from the various component parts of what I think is a federation of SCCs, there is an opportunity there to invite the Secretary of State for Scotland, but others of us would be willing to do so.

I heard the request that we should engage in pre-negotiation. I am not going to side-step it, and I know it will be a disappointment to my noble friend Lord MacGregor, but the United Kingdom Government have made it clear that we are not going to enter into pre-negotiations. My noble friend Lord Caithness said that the First Minister had said that we should. In fact, in a letter to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy First Minister said:

“The Scottish Government has not asked you to pre-empt the referendum vote in that way. Indeed, I was clear in my speech at Strathclyde University on 3 December that ‘independence negotiations [... ] will follow a yes vote’”.

There are a number of reasons for this. Many people in your Lordships’ House are involved in business, and I do not know how many of them would go into a negotiation showing their negotiating hand and their red lines. Perhaps more fundamentally than that, I belong to a Government who represent the whole of the United Kingdom. If we were to have that kind of pre-negotiation, I suspect it would not be possible for my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to be part of it because, in the event of independence, he would have a different standpoint. He is a Scot. You would then have part of the United Kingdom Government perhaps debating against another part. My noble friend Lord Caithness might expect me, as someone who is resident in Orkney, to have an interest in that too, and I might not be able to take part either. I cannot think of anything that would better suit the argument of those who want to break up the United Kingdom than that those who want to maintain the United Kingdom spend the next 15 months arguing with each other about what the negotiating position would be. This Government believe in a United Kingdom. If there are negotiations post a referendum, someone will need to represent the interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that cannot happen before the referendum. We believe in the integrity of the United Kingdom, and once you start unstitching the threads of the United Kingdom by that kind of approach, I fear that we would be in a very difficult position indeed.

When my noble friend Lord Forsyth was quoting the First Minister quoting Robert Burns, I sent a note to the Box asking for the words of a poem that starts:

“Does Haughty Gaul Invasion Threat”.

The Box came back with the verse:

“Be Britain still to Britain true,

Amang ourselves united;

For never but by British hands

Maun British wrangs be righted!”.

I got the words from the Box, but my noble friend quoted the poem by himself. There is so much truth in it. If we want to put out a very clear position, there is a way in which people in Scotland can have the same currency as people in the rest of the United Kingdom, the same financial regulations, the same passports, the Bank of England as lender of last resort, the same welfare provisions and the BBC. It is called the United Kingdom, and I hope people will vote for the United Kingdom on 18 September next year.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 13th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I very much agree with the initial comments of the noble Lord that Scotland is better within the UK and the UK is better with Scotland in it. I take his point, too, that it is important that the tone of the argument is set, and that it is positive, because there is a very positive case to make. However, pointing out some of the difficulties and challenges of independence does not mean that we are scaremongering or being negative. For example, the paper recently published on currency showed the disadvantages of a number of other options but also showed, beyond peradventure, that the best option of all is for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, will my noble and learned friend indicate what the Government’s position will be on the West Lothian question and on the Barnett formula? Surely, if people are going to vote in the referendum and wish to remain in the United Kingdom, they need to know what the position of their representatives at Westminster will be, and what the funding position in the future will be.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the commission established to look at the so-called West Lothian question, under the chairmanship of Sir William McKay, reported a couple of months ago, and obviously the Government are looking at and considering the detail of that report. It has been made clear on a number of occasions that the Government do not have any plans to reform or revise the Barnett formula, as our primary objective is to get the UK government finances back into a healthy situation.

Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I have indeed heard the First Minister’s call for a head-to-head debate with the Prime Minister. I also recall the First Minister warning London-based politicians such as the Prime Minister to keep out of the referendum campaign, so he cannot have it both ways. While I accept the challenge and would be delighted to take part, one might also ask whether the First Minister will go head-to-head with the leader of the Better Together campaign, Mr Alistair Darling, who at least has a vote in the referendum, unlike the Prime Minister. However, let me make this clear: the Prime Minister will argue very vigorously for Scotland’s continuing place in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, will my noble and learned friend acknowledge that the Prime Minister is not a London-based politician? He is Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom. Will he not agree that the referendum on independence for Scotland is clearly a matter for Scotland? However, if we were to move to devo-max or some form of federalism, that would be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, which would need to be settled by a referendum that involved everyone in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I certainly agree with my noble friend, and I think I made it clear that the Prime Minister believes in the integrity of the United Kingdom. I believe it was others who suggested that he was a London-based politician. I also hear what he says about so-called devo-max, which is a brand without a product at the moment. I also recognise that that has implications for the other parts of the United Kingdom and that, were we to go down such a road, it would be very important to secure buy-in from those other parts of the United Kingdom.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for introducing this amendment. It has generated a passionate debate and raised important issues, not least ones also reflected in our Second Reading debate about the upbringing of children should there be a mixed marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, quite properly indicated that this Bill is limited in its scope and does not deal with the established church or the monarch as Supreme Governor. I know the passion with which my noble friend Lord Forsyth takes a view—which I share—on the wording of some 17th century legislation. That wording is offensive, but as the noble Lord recognised from his early attempts with a Private Member’s Bill, these matters are hugely complex and I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with them.

As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, indicated, at Second Reading he and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, asked if I would meet representatives of the Catholic Church. I did so earlier this week. I can inform the House that I came away with a clear message that in the instance of mixed marriages the approach of the Roman Catholic Church is a pastoral one. It was considerably stressed to me that the Catholic Church will always look to provide guidance that supports and strengthens the unity of the partnership and the indissolubility of marriage. It is in this context that the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses sincerely to undertake to do all they can to raise their children within the Catholic Church.

However, where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, it has been drawn to my attention that the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law. The clear signal was that the overriding concern in Catholic pastoral guidance to couples in mixed marriages—it was drawn to my attention that there are many mixed marriages today in England and Wales—is the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. I assure the House that it is not the case that the children of all mixed Protestant and Catholic marriages must be brought up in the Catholic faith.

It is also important to note the important concept within the Catholic Church of subsidiarity. As a Presbyterian I do not pretend to understand it, but it is one that I have certainly heard associated with the Catholic Church. We perhaps debate the word in another context, but within the organisation of the Catholic Church, subsidiarity is an important concept and much decision-making is devolved to a local level, including decisions relating to mixed marriages. Quite simply, the Vatican does not get involved. My noble friend Lord Deben highlighted both the constitutional implications and significance if the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cormack were to be carried. It would raise constitutional issues and would put the Pope in a very difficult position, one that I suspect the Vatican does not aspire to have thrust upon it. In its recent letter to Members of your Lordships’ House on this issue, the Church of England stated:

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

that is, the prohibition on marrying a Catholic—and therefore:

“Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty”.

The Archbishop of Westminster, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, welcomed the decision of the Government to give heirs to the Throne the freedom to marry a Catholic, and recognised the importance of the position of the established church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What was the Government’s motivation in removing the prohibition on the heir to the Throne marrying a Catholic? Was it to enable the heir to the Throne to marry a Catholic, or was it to remove the discrimination against Catholics?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean to suggest that it was as Supreme Governor of the Church of England that she made the oath with regard to the Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland. I was in fact suggesting the opposite; it would not be appropriate for someone who was appointed as a regent—a Supreme Governor—to make that oath. I think that that would be wholly inappropriate. It raises the question of whether a monarch who was indeed a member of the Roman Catholic Church would be in a position to make any commitment regarding the maintenance of the Protestant religion and the system of Presbyterian Church Government.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Why?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend Lord Forsyth asks why. I think that it raises some very interesting issues that have not been thought through. This is why I say that we should not go down this road. I do not propose to go down this road; I suggest that there is a host of issues, and that is why we should not go down the road proposed by the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Trefgarne replies, perhaps I may pick up on a point where I do not believe that the argument of my noble friend Lord True holds. Under the law as it stands—and there is no proposal here, nor do the Government have any proposals to change the law—the sovereign may not be, nor have been, a Roman Catholic. Therefore, the situation which my noble friend Lord True suggested, where the sovereign comes to the Throne having to agonise as to whether to renounce the Catholic religion, just would not arise, because, having been a Catholic, he or she would not be eligible to ascend to the Throne.

I entirely concur with my noble friend’s opening remarks: these are very much human matters at the end of the day. There is a human dimension to it, and that is why, in response to the earlier debate, I sought to reflect the discussions which I had with representatives of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales so that this is looked at at a pastoral, human level, which seeks to reflect the importance of the union of a partnership and the indissolubility of marriage. It is against that background that decisions should be made and advice given with regard to the upbringing of a family. I accept that there is a human dimension to this, but I should perhaps clarify that the dilemma that my noble friend was suggesting cannot occur because the position is that the sovereign must not be, or have been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I had not appreciated this until my noble and learned friend said it: he said that not only would a Catholic not be able to ascend to the Throne but that someone who had been a Catholic but had then converted to be an Anglican could not ascend to the Throne. That has nothing whatever to do with the position of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That is a simple discrimination against Catholics. My noble and learned friend said, “Oh, the reason that we have made this Bill focus on just these three areas is because the issues are so complex”. It is clear that he will not accept the amendment, and I accept some of his arguments for that—but, in listening to this debate, can he not see that there are a number of issues? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that we should have a Select Committee, or some kind of body to look at these issues, and park the Bill while that is going on. What is the rush here? What is the reason for our needing to rush forward with this legislation at this pace?

Perhaps at the end of the day, it might be concluded that it was impossible to reconcile maintaining an established Church with removing this discrimination against Catholics. However, if the Government say, “Oh well, this is just a Bill that’s dealing with these matters”, bear in mind that this legislation has to be approved by all the other Parliaments around the world. Would they not think it very odd if we came forward with this Bill now and then a short while later came forward with the other bit of it? Or is the proposition that this is just too difficult? If it is too difficult, why on earth did the Government embark on this journey in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lang for this amendment, and not least for the way in which he moved it. Although it was entertaining in many respects, I fully recognise his points. I am not being disparaging—I enjoyed his speech. It was a very good speech and his points were interesting. It is important to point out that none of the people who were in and out actually ascended the Throne. I take his point, which is a pertinent one. Reference has been made on more than one occasion—in another place, too—to the issue of Princess Victoria, as she was known when she was born, being fifth in line to the Throne. There has not been a monarch since the 1772 Act who has been any further out at birth.

Perhaps my mind was working along similar lines to that of my noble friend because I also asked whether it is worth considering when the provision actually bites—which, of course, is at the point of marriage. Since the 1772 Act came on to the statute book, the person who was furthest away from the Throne at the time of consent to a marriage being sought and given was, indeed, around the same time as my noble friend was talking about: King William IV was third in line to the Throne when he married and when he sought and was given consent for his marriage under the 1772 Act. So, in the 240 years since the Act was passed, William IV has been the furthest away from the Throne at the time of his marriage. Again, I am not pretending that there is perfection in this, and I do not believe that a Select Committee could attain perfection in this either. The proposal for six therefore still allows a considerable amount of leeway—which is probably not the right word, but it is the most appropriate word that comes to mind at the moment.

It is important to remind ourselves that a balance needs to be found between mitigating against catastrophic but remote hypothetical events of a line being wiped out and the risk of impinging unnecessarily upon the lives of those who are distant from the Throne. Clearly, my noble friend Lord Lang would prefer to give greater weight to the former; my noble friend Lord Northbrook gives greater weight to the other end of the spectrum. I will not found my argument on that. As three is the farthest away from the Throne at the time of marriage, I believe that six is reasonable. This is bearing in mind that, on the other side of the coin, it can impinge unnecessarily upon the lives of those who are that much more distant from the Throne.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, what representations have the Government had from anyone about their lives being impinged unnecessarily in this matter?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We have not had the representations that one would expect to receive. I suspect that under the present law there are people who, understandably, do not know that, as a descendant of King George II, they are expected to get consent from the sovereign if they wish to marry. Indeed, we seek in this Bill to address the issue of those who have, as it were, unwittingly married.

The other important point perhaps addresses the point made by my noble friend about the European Convention on Human Rights. There are two issues here. First, the European Court of Human Rights has generally been very reluctant to engage in issues which go to the heart of a nation’s constitution and who should be their head of state. Secondly, unlike the 1772 Act, which made a marriage void if the consent of the Sovereign was not forthcoming, this does nothing so significant. It simply removes the person from the line of succession and the marriage will still be valid. It means only that the person who had not received consent would not take their place in the line of succession.

My noble friend Lord Lang asked where the number six arose from. Ahead of the Perth agreement my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to each realm Government proposing changes to the law of succession principally with regard to the removal of male bias and the bar on the heir marrying a Catholic. At that point the realm Governments were also made aware of the issues surrounding the Royal Marriages Act and the view of this Government that it was outdated. Subsequent discussions with the realm Governments were led by New Zealand which concluded that it was in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate for those who are genuinely close to the Throne to seek consent to marry. To avoid the same problems presented by the Royal Marriages Act in attaching a monarchical consent requirement to the descendants of a specific monarch—at Second Reading I think that someone suggested that we could make it the descendants of George VI rather than George II; that was thought to store up problems for the future—the number six was proposed and agreed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister then wrote to each of the realm Prime Ministers to confirm their consent to this provision.

I apologise that I was unable to respond to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne at Second Reading when he asked whether consent had ever actually been refused under the 1772 Act. So far as the Government are aware, there has been no instance when the sovereign’s consent to a royal marriage has been refused. My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked in relation to Amendment 14 whether the common law still applies to monarchical consent in cases such as the remarriage of a dowager queen. There is a good argument that the 1772 Act replaced all common law provisions on royal consent to marriages, but it also could be argued that because the 1772 Act applies to the descendants of George II, the common law requirement might conceivably still apply to members of the Royal Family who are not descendants of George II, for example in the remarriage of a dowager queen or a prince consort. But these instances would not affect the line of succession and it is important to recognise that what we are doing here relates only to that. The Bill is concerned with people who may become the sovereign, not with members of the wider Royal Family. It has a specific purpose.

As I say, no number will be perfect, but if one considers that, in the 240 years since the 1772 Act went on to the statute book, the furthest away in line from the Throne at the time when consent for marriage was sought was three; we are allowing for three more. I believe that the figure is a rational one and I would invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his amendment, which gives me a welcome opportunity to explain why the amendment that he is seeking to delete was inserted in Committee in the House of Commons.

The effect of the Bill as originally presented, as indeed would be the effect of my noble friend’s amendment, would be to disqualify all descendants from any marriage of a person when a marriage of that person was not consented to. For example—and in fact the other way round from what my noble friend suggested—if a person in the line of succession married with consent and had children, their spouse died and they remarried without consent and had children, the children of the first marriage, which had been consented to, could be disqualified.

The intention of subsection (4) is to disqualify from the line of succession any royal descendants from a marriage not approved by the sovereign. It would go too far also to disqualify descendants from a previous marriage for which consent had been obtained. For these reasons, the amendment to include the words “from the marriage” was tabled and accepted in another place. That is entirely consistent with the agreement that was reached with the other realms and removes a possible ambiguity. The other realms were fully informed of this drafting change before it was proposed.

We will come later to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that relates to the bringing into effect of the Bill. There is no date set. I do not want to pre-empt that amendment and that discussion, but if my noble friend Lord Elton looks at Clause 5, “Commencement and short title”, he will see that provision is made for it to come into force,

“on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint”.

The purpose of that is so these measures can all come in together on the same date and, I think, at the same time, in the 16 different realms.

Some realms are dealing with this in different ways. Some, such as New Zealand and Canada, will legislate to ensure that the changes take effect in their country. I believe that the Bill was brought into the New Zealand Parliament last week. Other realms, such as Papua New Guinea and Jamaica, have found that they do not need to legislate. The intention is that when all realms have done what is necessary regarding their arrangements, the measures will be brought into effect at the same time. There is no date set.

It has been said that the Bill was rushed through the other place. As I have said on more than one occasion, the Bill did not even take up the time allocated to it in the other place, so I am not sure what could have been done if more time was allocated. It is a simple fact that the time was not taken up.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To argue that it did not take up the time and to try and present this as treating an important constitutional measure properly is quite unfair. The point is that all stages of this Bill were carried out over two days in the other place. The conventions have been that constitutional Bills are dealt with over a proper passage of time so that people can make points, the Government can think about them and perhaps even come back with a suggestion for change. By tradition, constitutional Bills have always been taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. To try to argue that this Bill was not rushed through the other place in an untimely manner, with many Members’ speeches protesting about the way it was handled, is a little misleading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, different realms do it in different ways. To pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, with regard to the amendment raised by my noble friend Lord Elton—on the same subject matter we are discussing now—it does not change the substance of the agreement but rather seeks to remove a possible ambiguity. It was circulated among the other realms, their comments were sought and they were satisfied with that.

With regard to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I understand different realms are dealing with this in different ways. At least one of them, I think, is saying that it approves of the law passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. Others are approving more substantive legislation, and some believe no legislation is necessary at all. It varies, but at the heart of it was an agreement on the substance—namely, the removal of male bias in terms of succession to the Throne; the removal of the barrier of the person in line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic; and the abolition of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and its replacement with the sovereign’s consent for the first six in line. Earlier, in my response to my noble friend Lord Lang, I indicated that I do not think that that was in the original Perth agreement but was subsequently agreed. The number of six was agreed with the realms.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Will he be kind enough to write to those of us who have an interest detailing how each of the realms concerned will deal with this matter? Would there be any merit in us trying to persuade those parliaments perhaps to accept my noble friend Lord Lang’s injunction to change from six to 12? If one of them did so, what would happen then? Would we have to go back and look at it again? How would it be resolved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I indicated, it is up to each country to do it. We are not telling each country what to do and no one is suggesting that. It will be up to each country to determine, according to their own procedures, how that should be done. The key point is the flexibility built into the commencement clause: it will not be given effect to until we are satisfied that all realms have, by whatever procedures they consider proper and necessary, reached that position.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I need to be absolutely certain that I understand what my noble and learned friend has been saying. Is he saying that this legislation will not come into effect until it has been approved by all the realms? Is he also saying that this legislation will not come into effect unless and until all its provisions have been approved to the letter by all these realms? In other words, is he saying that if there is a difference of a minor degree between one realm and the legislation then the legislation would not be taken forward?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading, the intent is that it should be simultaneous commencement in each realm and therefore, by definition, it will not be brought into effect here. Clause 5 will come into effect on the day on which the Act is passed, but that is the commencement section. Otherwise, that then gives effect to what else is there in terms of the commencement order. If there is a material difference we would clearly not be in a position to commence. I think it was my noble friend who made the point that it would not be a very satisfactory position if two generations down the line the Crown went in one direction in one realm and in another direction in another realm. That is what we are seeking to avoid, that is why there was such an effort made to reach agreement and that is why it is important that, in translating that agreement, each realm does that by whatever means it thinks is appropriate according to its own procedures. When these are all done and delivering on the agreement has been reached, the commencement order would be made to ensure that commencement started simultaneously in each realm, delivering the same things.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not want to detain the House or split hairs but my noble and learned friend said, “If there is a material difference”. I would not say that my noble friend Lord Lang’s amendment, which suggested changing from six to 12, made a material difference to the import or impact of the Bill. I would say that it was a perfectly sensible, minor adjustment. However, if one of the other realms, overwhelmed by the power of the argument put by my noble friend this afternoon, decided to change it from six to 12, would that mean that commencement would not proceed?

[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.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important contribution to that debate. I hope that he will recognise that it would not be appropriate to open up that whole issue, not least given the conflicting views that we have heard in the course of your Lordships’ deliberations today, for the purposes of this piece of legislation. However, I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had a Private Member’s Bill on this subject at one point—this issue is not dealt with, nor do the Government believe that it should be. We believe in the maintenance of the established Church of England. It is an issue, though, and when that debate takes place my noble friend’s contribution will be an important one for people to consider.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. When he says that it is not an issue for this debate, surely the very reason why the prohibition on the heir to the Throne marrying a Catholic being removed is to end that discrimination. My noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion of a regency would work with the way in which the Bill is presently constructed—that is, the heir to the Throne may be a Catholic but cannot be one. For those of us who do not wish to see the Church of England being anything other than the Established Church, this would be a way of removing the discrimination against Catholics. I have to say that we are not repealing the vile and offensive language, from our modern-day view, which is contained in the 18th-century statute and which causes great offence to Catholics throughout the United Kingdom. Would it not be sensible to consider my noble friend’s suggestion?

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. On the point that 86% of the respondents supported the UK Government’s position, this position was that the referendum process should be looked after by the Electoral Commission. Why did the UK Government not insist on that being part of the Edinburgh agreement?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have considerable respect for the noble Lord. Of course I take his point, but what conceivable reason could Alex Salmond have for not agreeing, along with the other parties, that the Electoral Commission’s advice should be followed unless it was that he wanted to rig the question? The noble Lord says, “Ah, but there will be a political price”, but shall we spend the rest of the referendum campaign saying, “Ah, but the question is unfair”? What happens if we win or lose by a tiny margin? There will be arguments forever after about whether it was a fairly conducted referendum campaign. That is why we need to lance this boil at an early stage. It is no good setting off from the starting line and throughout the race saying, “By the way, this is not a fair race”. We have to win this race if we are to save the United Kingdom.

Just in case the noble Lord thinks that I am being partisan, I should say that I was quite struck during the debate on the order in the other place by what Mr Alistair Darling, the Member for Edinburgh South West, who is playing such a fantastic role in leading the campaign for the union in Scotland, said about passing responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament. He said:

“There is absolutely nothing wrong in that”.

However, he went on to say:

“In practice, the transfer is not just to the Scottish Parliament but to the SNP, which runs the thing as a pretty tight ship—opposition is not usually tolerated—and not just to the SNP, because, as we know, the SNP is very much run by one individual. We need to be aware that that is what we are doing”.

It is absolutely essential that we understand that. Talking about the Edinburgh agreement, he said:

“That suggests that both parties were clear that the Electoral Commission’s role was impartial and that there was an assumption that they would accept whatever it proposes. It is, therefore, disappointing that before the ink was dry on the signatures, we heard from senior members of the SNP that the Electoral Commission could say what it wanted, but it would ultimately be the SNP’s call. That would be unfortunate, in relation to both the wording of the question and the spending limits”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; cols. 762 and 764.]

The only thing in that with which I would argue is the use of the word “unfortunate”, for which I would substitute “disastrous”.

There is within elements of the Government and elements of the unionist campaign a creeping complacency which I find really worrying. I keep hearing people saying, “Oh, there is only 33% support for independence”. I ask them to have a look at Quebec. In the referendum for secession there, the position started off with 70% to 75% opposed to secession; in fact, it was 67:33—almost exactly where we are now. By the end of the referendum campaign, the vote against was won by 0.6%. Let us not be cavalier in giving away things that could make all the difference, such as the weighting of the question and the ability of people to get their messages out at this stage.

I point out to my noble and learned friend the causal way in which the Government regard the extension by the Scottish Parliament of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, with all the implications that that will have. I do not have a particularly strong view—actually, I do have a strong view. I do not think that 16 and 17 year-olds should have the vote, but I am open to persuasion. However, what I cannot be persuaded of is that they should have the vote for some elections but not for others. Frankly, saying that the Scottish Parliament has given them elections for the Crofters Commission and that that somehow indicates that there is no precedent for the United Kingdom is an argument of a quality to which I hope the noble and learned Lord will not stoop when he is defending me.

We are suggesting that people in Scotland should not be able to buy a packet of fags or, as someone said in the other place, a packet of sparklers, or a drink in the pub, but that they can decide the future of the United Kingdom. We are suggesting that all of this can be done on the basis of what Alex Salmond decides when he gets out of bed in the morning. This is utterly frightening. If ever there was an example of the tail wagging the dog, then this is it. The franchise should be a UK matter.

My noble and learned friend, in echoing the Secretary of State, is talking nonsense when he expounds this view of devolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland said of the order:

“This devolution of power will ensure that the details of the referendum process itself are made in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament. That is a principle of great importance to the devolution settlement. Furthermore, the approach here respects another key feature of devolution—namely, that once a matter is passed to the Scottish Parliament, it is for that Parliament to determine the details of the legislation that follows”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; col. 745.]

That last is a point made by my noble and learned friend. This is not about devolution. The future of the United Kingdom is not a devolved matter; it is for the United Kingdom. It is true that the United Kingdom Government have decided to amend and use the powers in the Scotland Act to overturn the limitation in order to give the Scottish Parliament that power. I do not have a problem with that, provided that we know what we are getting ourselves into. I believe that we are at risk, given the way in which we are proceeding and the trust that we are putting in Alex Salmond. It is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop and arguing that the chickens will protest if it all goes wrong.

The Scottish Government, simply in any fairness, cannot be a participant and the referee at the same time, especially given that this First Minister has form. He was caught out telling porkies about whether he had had advice on whether we would have to rejoin the European Union if we were independent. He spent taxpayers’ money on preventing people getting, under freedom of information legislation, the facts, which turned out to be that what he had said was not true at all. He has already had a red card. I think that we should be concerned about trust.

Another point on the uncertainties that remain is about the timetable. It is absolutely ridiculous that we do not know the date of the referendum. It has to be by 2014, but everyone says that having to wait until 2014 will be hugely damaging to the Scottish economy and hugely damaging to business, will create enormous uncertainty and will bore us all to death, because we will be talking about this for far too long. We need to get on with it.

My noble and learned friend said that he was anxious to avoid talking about process and to get on with the arguments. If he is anxious to get on with the arguments, why on earth are we leaving these issues of process—the question and the rules of the referendum—open to more and more argument over a longer period? The Scottish Government are not even proposing to publish their White Paper until the end of the year—and presumably the Bill will be published after that—so we will be focusing on process because these matters have not been addressed.

Of course, the First Minister agrees with the Electoral Commission that the Scottish Government will need to be in purdah for only four weeks before the referendum. Given the disgraceful and partisan way in which the Permanent Secretary in the Scottish Office has behaved, and given the way in which Alex Salmond clearly is using his role in the Scottish Government to pursue a political agenda, I think that four weeks is far too short a time.

My noble and learned friend is right to say that we need to resolve these matters and get on with discussing the issues. I have to say to him that the UK Government have got some questions to answer as well. We cannot go on with a situation where, for example, the Ministry of Defence is saying, “No, we are not making any contingency plans as to what to do about the Trident nuclear deterrent if Scotland becomes independent and the SNP keeps its commitment to throw the nuclear weapons out of Scotland. We are not doing anything because we do not think that it is going to happen”. That is not good enough. The department should be setting out what the consequences would be in terms of the jobs lost—around 10,000 in Scotland—what the cost to the English taxpayer would be and what the future of our deterrent would be. That applies to every single government department. They should stop sitting there thinking that it is not going to happen. We have a duty to ensure that the voters know exactly what the consequences of voting for independence would be.

The SNP has a role, too. It needs to make its case. It is extraordinary that we will have to wait until the end of the year to hear how the proposal will work. It has had about 30 years to think about it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Eighty years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before the noble and learned Lord leaves the topic of the Electoral Commission—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am going to come back to it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Well, perhaps, when he comes back to it, he can answer the question whether it was ever part of the British Government’s negotiating position to require the Scottish Government to accept the advice of the Electoral Commission on the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I had indicated that I would not defend the question that had been put forward. It would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission to indicate that. I was asked about time; as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, there is a timeline. My noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested that the legislation for the referendum would not come until after the White Paper. My understanding is that if this House, and subsequently, the Privy Council, approve the order next month, the Bill will be presented to the Scottish Parliament in March. The Bill cannot in fact be presented to the Scottish Parliament until such time as this order has been approved, which is why the timing of it is as it is.

The important point with regard to the question is that what has been done by this order, in transferring the legal competence to the Scottish Parliament, is such that the nature of the question and the advice of the Electoral Commission will go to the Scottish Parliament. It is not proper, and it would fuel that sense of grievance, if somehow or another we said “We’ll give you the competence to legislate for this, but only provided that we can write or prior-approve the question for you”. That would lead to a very strong sense of grievance, and would put us, who want to argue the case for our United Kingdom, on the back foot in many of the ensuing debates.

I very much hope that common sense will prevail, and that the sense of achieving a decisive outcome will prevail with the Scottish Government and Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, indicated, they will pay a very serious political price if they do not do so.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does the Minister really mean that it was right for the Electoral Commission not to give its advice to this House and the other place on the intelligibility of the question proposed by the Scottish Parliament, and that it would be wrong for us to comment on it? If we had had the Electoral Commission’s advice today—it must be provided by 1 February—quite a long time would have been saved, because we would have known what the position was. Surely we have not got to the position where we are so afraid that what we are doing will be misrepresented that we cannot do our work. Of course we cannot decide the question, but surely it would have been entirely appropriate for us to have the opportunity to comment on the question in the light of the independent advice from the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, a number of questions are rolled up into that. First, that is not the obligation of the Electoral Commission—there is no statutory duty or anything else for it to provide the answer by 1 February. I cannot remember which noble Lords made the point that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee had produced a report in a relatively short period of time, so why could the Electoral Commission not do the same?

The task of the Electoral Commission, among other things, is to go out and sample the question, which is not something, with all due respect, that the Constitution Committee intended to do, and neither would we expect it to do so. There is, therefore, a piece of work to be done in testing the question for its intelligibility, whether it is leading or misleading, whether it is neutral or whether it can be understood by those who will be asked to answer it in the referendum. I do not believe, therefore, that there was somehow some obligation on the Electoral Commission to rush that. I can hear the criticisms now if people thought that it had in some way been rushed.

Neither my noble friend nor any other noble Lord will be inhibited from commenting on the report of the Electoral Commission, which will be published and very much in the public domain. I will come to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in a moment. There is no doubt that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine. There will be every opportunity for voices to be expressed as to what the Scottish Parliament should do in the light of the advice from the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I will certainly ensure that his comments and the general sense of the House is drawn to the attention to the Ministry of Defence. No doubt Questions can be asked to ensure that we live up to that.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Forsyth quite properly said that there should be no room for complacency. That was echoed by other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I could not agree with them more. I have said—although I do not think it was from the Dispatch Box—that the biggest enemy that those of us who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom have is complacency. We must guard against it, not simply because I want to win—I want to win very convincingly indeed. I certainly take the point about differential turnout made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and very much believe that we should guard against complacency.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked about information. I suspect that we will not get a completely neutral arbiter, although some bodies are producing evidence from a more neutral point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, who I think is a former chair of CBI Scotland, appropriately raised the pertinent questions that CBI Scotland is addressing to the Scottish Government.

The Government have made it clear that we will be publishing material to provide information, not least about the number of jobs provided by the defence industry and what benefits being part of the United Kingdom bring to Scottish security. It will also set out facts, which are perhaps currently unknown or often just taken for granted. In that regard, it will include the importance of our position in the world. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom which punches much above its weight in terms of our population and because of our history, to which Scotland has contributed. It will talk about the protection of our citizens. It will talk about the many economic benefits to the United Kingdom.

The first of those papers will be published in the next few weeks, and we will publish further papers throughout 2013. I hope that that brings important information, which we will all be able to use in our arguments for the furtherance of the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth and I were both elected to the other place 30 years ago this year, and I have known him all that time. We have disagreed about a number of issues, not least Scotland’s constitutional future, but I have always respected where he comes from on that and the important issues that he has raised this afternoon. One issue on which we can join together is that it is very important that we join together people right across this Chamber who believe that Scotland is better as part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom is better with Scotland in it; that we share a common heritage; that we share common social bonds; that we have a shared cultural heritage with, fundamentally, shared political values; and that we can defend them much more effectively in an uncertain and challenging world when we are working together. It is in that spirit that I want to argue that case, and I urge your Lordships to approve the order.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, what a wonderful debate we have had. It is pretty clear to me that there is a consensus in all parts of this Chamber— bar one, if I may say so—about the need to have a referendum campaign that is seen to be fairly conducted and where there is no dispute about the result at the end of the day.

As I said at the beginning, I do not propose to divide the House. I think that that would be a huge error on my part, because it might give the impression that we are not as united as we are on these matters. However, I say to my noble and learned friend—we have been friends for a long time, if opponents, which we are not now, although we were earlier in the week; it is very difficult to work out what the nomenclature of this week should be—that he has taken a risk, a gamble, on being able to ensure that we get a decent question and proper rules for the referendum. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and back his judgment. If it turns out to be wrong, he can expect some very vigorous debates in future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

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

My Lords, people in Scotland deserve a referendum on Scottish independence that is legal, fair and decisive. There has been substantial progress made towards an agreement, but details are still under negotiation between the two Governments. The Government will ensure that both Houses of Parliament are kept fully informed, and the order required to provide legal competence to the Scottish Parliament will require the approval not only of the Scottish Parliament but of both Houses, as well as Her Majesty in Council.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to my noble and learned friend that he has not answered my Question. Matters of electoral importance and the extension of the franchise are not matters to be carried out in hole-in-the-corner negotiations, however senior the parties. If the franchise is to be extended in Scotland for a referendum, is it not inevitable that we will have to extend it to 16 year-olds for all elections throughout the United Kingdom? This matter has huge implications, not least that it will bring politics into our schools. If the Government are proposing to do that, would it not be proper for them to issue a paper for consultation, to consult widely and to make no commitments whatever until they have done so?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that there is nothing inevitable about what he says. I will make clear the position. The franchise for all parliamentary elections to the United Kingdom Parliament and to the devolved Parliaments has been set by Westminster. There are no plans to change this. The franchise for referendums is set out in the legislation that enables each referendum to take place. Noble Lords will recall the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act and our debates on the franchise for the AV referendum last year. If we agree to transfer power to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, it is they who will determine the franchise—as is the case for elections and referendums on matters that are already devolved. It is no secret that this has been one of the issues in substantive discussions that have taken place between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. However, any decision—should it ever happen—by the Scottish Parliament to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in an independence referendum would not affect the franchise for parliamentary elections.

Wales: Devolution

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I have described what was said in the coalition agreement for this Parliament. I do not think that anyone would be wise enough to predict the policy of any Administration, of whatever hue, in a subsequent Parliament. My noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Roberts of Llandudno were right to point out that the previous Administration did not address this either. Indeed, in their response to your Lordships’ Select Committee report, they stated that the Barnett formula:

“has a number of strengths”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

There is unanimity throughout this House that Barnett has to be changed. Will the Minister explain the logic of the coalition agreement? What on earth has dealing with Barnett got to do with dealing with the deficit? Surely the Government are capable of doing more than one thing at the same time. I cannot see the linkage between addressing the Barnett formula and dealing with the deficit. The Barnett formula, if it is changed, is simply about the distribution of existing resources. It does not affect the deficit in any way. When the coalition agreement was drafted, what on earth was in the minds of the four people who did it?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not a mind reader. It does not necessarily follow that it is a zero-sum game, as my noble friend would consider. I have heard people make this case before and no one has suggested that it should be a “beggar my neighbour” approach, which could actually lead to an increase in expenditure.

In a debate on a commission that does not have the Barnett formula in its remit, the Government’s position is not going to change. I have indicated the Government’s position, but there are intergovernmental talks, which have been referred to, and the Government indicated that they would engage in them. I was asked a number of other questions, initially raised by my noble friend Lady Randerson. The talks between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government are looking at all aspects of the Holtham reports, including the extent of convergence between the trends of devolved funding and equivalent funding for England, and how need might be best measured. The commission is not considering, as I made clear, the fundamental overhaul of the Barnett formula. However, as I indicated, it is looking at these issues, such as convergence—although at the present time it is divergence rather than convergence—and how the need might best be measured.

My noble friends Lord Maclennan and Lady Randerson asked about borrowing and the state of discussions, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. The Silk commission is looking at the case for borrowing powers for Welsh Ministers as part of its consideration in part 1. The bilateral talks between the United Kingdom and Welsh Governments are looking at how the latter might best use their existing powers—I hope that this refers to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—which were inherited by Welsh Ministers on the abolition of the Welsh Development Agency. They are, admittedly, relatively limited, but this is part of the ongoing discussion between the two Governments. Indeed, my right honourable friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Wales have each met Jane Hutt, the Welsh Finance Minister, in the past fortnight, so these talks are very much alive and active.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked how the recent initiative to encourage the banks to lend more, announced by the Government this week, would impact on Wales. The funding for lending scheme is designed to boost lending in the real economy, making mortgages and loans cheaper and more easily available to families and businesses right across the United Kingdom. Wales will be as entitled to apply and take advantage of that as any other part of the country. The scheme opens on 1 August for 18 months.

Another important point, which was raised by noble friend Lord Maclennan and then spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, is that there have been a number of different commissions. They asked whether there was a possibility of taking a more strategic look. Very recently, the Prime Minister indicated that there will be a need for an open, involved and comprehensive conversation about what kind of union we want to see, and—almost 15 years after the process of devolution started in the United Kingdom—that we should consider the best way of having such a conversation. However, the Prime Minister made it clear that that should await the outcome of the Scottish referendum, which is likely to be in 2013-14. That view was reflected in at least one speech in your Lordships’ House today. We will certainly be arguing for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland to remain part of it. That is the first and foremost objective and focus of not just the Government but the Labour Party in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. The point is one that I suspect will feature in more of our debates in the weeks and months to come.

In conclusion, I indicate that in introducing the debate my noble friend asked how we might take forward the comments made in it. I certainly undertake to write to Paul Silk, drawing the commission’s attention to the fact that the debate has taken place and to the comments that have been made. It is also pertinent to say that not only to the commission but within government. Points have been made in this debate on which I am sure some of my colleagues in government will wish to reflect.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, these minor and technical amendments, which are a cue for those who wish to leave to do so, will ensure that all references to “Scottish Executive” in Section 44 of the Scotland Act are amended to “Scottish Government”. Clause 12 of the Bill renames the Scottish Executive as the Scottish Government. This clause was included in the Bill following increasing use of the term Scottish Government by the Scottish Administration, indeed by the UK Government and the public as well. Clause 12 will ensure that the use of its legal and public name is consistent. The current clause does not encapsulate every mention of the Scottish Executive within Section 44 of the Scotland Act and these amendments will ensure that the policy intention underlying Clause 12 is fully implemented. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am not going to make a speech about the relevance of the definite article, but I wonder whether my noble and learned friend might help me by giving some understanding of why it was felt necessary to change the name of the Scottish Executive to that of the Scottish Government, but not at the same time to change the name of First Minister to that of Prime Minister. Given that we apparently have a Scottish Government and a Scottish Cabinet, why has he not felt it necessary to make a change to the title of the leader of that Government? I ask that question not in order to make mischief but to underline the point as to what is going on here.

The Scottish Executive were called the Scottish Executive with very good reason: in order to demonstrate that power devolved is power retained, and that we did not have competing governments in a unitary system. If you are going to have separate governments, you have to have separate roles within some kind of federal structure. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend even considered changing “First Minister” to “Prime Minister of Scotland”. Looking at the behaviour of the First Minister in Scotland, Prime Minister is probably not a grand enough title—there may be other titles which would be more appropriate, given the all-encompassing role which he carries out—but in order not to delay proceedings, I will not elaborate on that matter. I would be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could explain to me why it was thought necessary to change just this aspect of the nomenclature of the Scottish Administration.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a pertinent point. As I explained in moving the amendment, the term Scottish Government, albeit technical, is widely used publicly. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that it was first ever used by the Scottish Administration in a document which I rather suspect the late Donald Dewar and I co-signed in 1999 or 2000. It is not only used by the Scottish Administration but has been used by the UK Government, and is used widely within the public. We therefore think it makes sense to amend the Act to reflect this public perception and avoid the potential for confusion, if indeed the popularly used name differs from the one required for legislation, contracts and legal matters.

As I am sure my noble friend will agree, while there have been regular references to the Scottish Government as opposed to the Scottish Executive, the term “First Minister” is one which has stuck. There has been no attempt or suggestion to use the term “Prime Minister”, or any public use of it, to refer to the person who holds that office and there is a clear distinction between the two. I hope that I am not giving anyone encouragement, or they might start to use the term “Prime Minister”. Clearly, that has not happened. We are seeking here to bring into line the public perception and the legal requirements. On that basis I hope that your Lordships’ House will agree to these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for tabling this amendment and for accepting the principle of the amendments that, as he indicated, I tabled at an earlier stage of the Bill. After I do not know how many thousands of words that I have spoken on the Bill on all the issues that have been raised, he will realise that it is a matter of great comfort to me to know that I have extended the powers of the Scottish Parliament to enable it to set speed limits for caravans and lorries. That no doubt will be my epitaph in respect of the consideration of the Bill. Just to ensure that this is on record, I think that it is ridiculous to have different speed limits north and south of the border, but if we are going to go down that track then clearly it is essential that there should be consistency.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I know may have had to press the Department for Transport a little in order to ensure this minor victory for extra powers to the Scottish Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I think I am right in saying that, since the Bill was introduced, this is the only amendment that will actually extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament. For that, I am extremely grateful to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for introducing these amendments. I will try to say something about them but, as my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said, they have also provided your Lordships’ House with an opportunity to have something more akin to a House of Commons Third Reading debate, which has been very useful. I am very grateful for the comments that have been made from all parts of your Lordships’ House and wish to express my appreciation for the kind personal words that have been said.

I hope that I can do justice to a number of the comments that were made, but perhaps I may start by referring to the amendments. I understand and know where my noble friend comes from, and I would wish to join others who have paid tribute to him for his diligence in our proceedings on the Bill. He has highlighted a number of issues, and while I know that he will not always necessarily have been satisfied with the replies, he has at least prompted consideration and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, which is one of the purposes of your Lordships’ House. His amendments give him a hook to hang a number of points on. I know that he is not happy with the Bill, and I suspect that we will disagree on this just as we disagreed 14 or 15 years ago on devolution. Nevertheless, I respect the view that he has maintained over a long period.

In tabling the amendment, my noble friend sought to improve the drafting of the Bill, which is a criterion for getting an amendment accepted at Third Reading. I am sorry to say that I do not think the amendment meets that test. One learns interesting things in dealing with these Bills. The purpose of the Short Title of the Bill is that it must give sufficient indication of the content in a way that is not misleading; it cannot be argumentative or a slogan; it becomes the Short Title of the Act when passed, so it needs to be helpful to users and not unwieldy; and, above all, it must be short. With due respect, my noble friend’s amendment does not meet that test.

I accept one part of his argument. It is important that people in Scotland, as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom, recognise what the content of the Bill is because these are important and profound changes. It is up to all the political parties to ensure that the knowledge is there and that debate in the Scottish Parliament now focuses on how these powers will be used. There are important powers relating to airguns and speed limits but also with regard to taxation, as well as the fact that stamp duty on land transactions will be disapplied in Scotland in 2015. When it comes to forward planning, the Scottish Parliament cannot sit around for very long before we start to get the colour and shape of how it will use these new powers and how it can do so imaginatively in a way that has not been done across the UK as a whole. I hope that, in taking forward these powers, there will be debate about their use.

On the issue mentioned by my noble friends Lord Selkirk of Douglas and Lord Steel of Aikwood, the purpose of the legislation following on from the Calman commission was indeed to increase the accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I think that it was in his Donald Dewar lecture that my noble friend Lord Steel reflected on just how unsustainable it would be for a Parliament to persist over a long period almost wholly dependent on a grant voted to it by another Parliament. That, and the need to increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament, are things that those of us who sat on the Calman commission were very conscious of. We also sought to get to a balance, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, between accountability and risk. Within a social union, many of these risks are shared, and better shared across a union of 60 million people than 5 million.

Perhaps the most important change relates to income tax. As Calman commissioners, the evidence that we received suggested very much that income tax was the tax that most people could recognise as having the most direct personal impact on them and therefore the one most likely to deliver that accountability.

I do not accept that the changes are too small; I believe that they will lead to greater accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, suggested that we should have gone much further and had a debate during the passage of the Bill on some of the wider powers that have been discussed in the media and political forums over recent weeks and months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said in welcoming the Calman commission, it was the consequence of a considered process. If one looks back at the constitutional convention that sat in the 1990s, which led ultimately to what was in the Scotland Act 1998, and the provisions suggested by the Calman commission, which deliberated and then led to the legislation before us today, we see a process whereby political parties—sometimes not as many as we would like—have joined in and reached a consensus without reflecting their own concerns and viewpoints. We have then been able to take that consensus forward, present it to voters in an election and subsequently go forward to legislation. I do not think that that would have been at all possible with regard to some of the perhaps more far-reaching issues that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to in terms of dealing with this legislation.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that I recognise there are judgment calls about whether the timing is right. However, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, that the manifestos of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party at the last election each made a promise. We do not need to be terribly imaginative to write the script of those who wish to advance the cause of independence and say, “Look, they promised you that and Westminster has not been able to deliver it. How much more can you actually trust Westminster?” That is a script that we will not let them write. It is right and proper that we have proceeded with this Bill.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth was sceptical about whether, if at a future date the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament espoused devolving a particular tax, Westminster would be able to stand up to them. Let us recall—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It was not about devolving a particular tax but about inventing a completely new tax.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, similar arguments apply whether it is for a new tax or the devolution of corporation tax, which is not a tax that the Scottish Parliament currently has. The more general point is that the Scottish Government actually asked for devolution of excise duties and corporation tax and the United Kingdom Government did not believe that the case had been made. This Government made it clear that we would not devolve further taxes unless there was evidence presented and a case made. In these particular examples, we took the view that no case had been made. There was no evidence and therefore it was resisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

There is a distinction between creating a completely new tax and devolving an existing tax. Corporation tax is an established tax in the Finance Bill. If Alex Salmond thinks of a completely new tax, all that is required for it to be imposed is for an Order in Council to go through both Houses of Parliament. That is a completely new and novel procedure and quite different from an argument about who will administer or levy an existing tax.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise if I misrepresented what my noble friend said. However, the response is similar. Having identified criteria, whether in the Bill or not—we have had debates on that—the point I wish to make is that there are criteria there and the United Kingdom Government have shown that they are not a pushover. We set out criteria regarding devolution of existing taxes; we stood by that and I have no reason to doubt that, having set out criteria regarding the devolution of any future tax, we would have to be satisfied before bringing forward to this and the other House an order to devolve further taxes.

Could I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell? She said that a different debate was going on. The two debates are not mutually exclusive. The difference is that while there has been a lot of talk by the Scottish Government about change, this Bill actually delivers change. However, many of us want to get on to the wider debate. Inevitably there will have to be a debate on process—the shorter the period devoted to it the better—but there are important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, clearly set out at least one of them: fiscal autonomy and its relationship to monetary policy. The conclusion of the Calman commission was that there was not much difference between fiscal autonomy and full independence. Clearly these are questions that will be debated in a much wider forum in the lead-up to a referendum.

There is an important issue about Europe and an independent Scotland’s relationship with the European Union. I respectfully suggest that a person with the knowledge and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, free from any party-political baggage, could give a view on that which people would listen to and would be an important contribution to a debate. I hear what is said about an independent commission. It might be a triumph of hope over experience, but I hope that there will be opportunities for independent think tanks and people with expertise and renown in their specific fields to come forward and express their views on the issues that will inevitably emerge in any referendum debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is fair to say that in the consultation paper that we launched on 10 January it was made clear that a single question was the preferred position of the United Kingdom Government. I am happy to say that the responses that we have received to that consultation give great support to that position.

In conclusion, I again acknowledge the benefit to the Bill of consideration and thorough scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, and not just in those areas where amendments have been made as a result of our debates. Through our debates we have explored many of the issues that we will continue to face as we move to the next important phase of implementing legislation. I echo the thanks not only to those who have taken part in the debates but to those who have supported me and my noble friend Lord Sassoon in them. While there have clearly and importantly been divisions—it would be very boring and impossible to achieve total consensus—it is not usual for a Bill to be supported by all three United Kingdom parties. However, there has been a note of consensus, which has been welcome. I also welcome the scrutiny. Whether noble Lords were supporters of devolution back in 1998 or support every clause here, I hope we recognise that we are stronger within a United Kingdom in which we devolve powers to the appropriate level and work together to pool resources and risks across the country for the benefit of all. That is what the Bill seeks to advance. It is part of developing and continuing support to maintain the United Kingdom, of which all noble Lords and I are very proud. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am devastated by that response. I am very disappointed in my noble and learned friend. I actually understood the criteria for the Short Title of a Bill, but I remember having a great struggle with the Scottish Office, which wanted to call a Bill the “Criminal Justice (No. 3)(Scotland) Bill” and I wanted to call it the “Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill”. I think that in the end I won that particular argument, but the legislation was promptly repealed by the Scottish Parliament, only to be reintroduced later as a populist measure in the same terms.

I do not accept that the Short Title I propose is too long. That was the only argument against the amendment that my noble and learned friend advanced in his interesting and helpful speech. One of the criteria is that the Short Title should not indicate advocacy or a point of view. I resisted that, although I was tempted. My draft suggested a Bill “to ensure that Scotland becomes the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom”, but the Public Bill Office felt that that did not meet the criteria. However, it would at least have warned people about what was coming down the legislative track.

As my noble and learned friend guessed, I tabled the amendment because I suspected that under our rules we do not normally make speeches when we are considering a Motion that a Bill do now pass. I suspected that people would want to get a few things off their chest. I shall resist the temptation to respond to all the points that were made, but I am also devastated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who tells me that the people of Scotland stopped listening to me some time ago. I should be very grateful if he could tell me afterwards when it was that they were listening to me.

I have to say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who said that I should note that the Scottish Parliament, including the Conservatives, had unanimously approved the Bill, he should note that the Scottish Parliament’s committee came forward with 45 different amendments to the Bill, which would have amounted pretty well to independence, and which the committee said it would insist upon. What my noble friend should note is that the Scottish Parliament seems to change its mind very radically very quickly. When people change their mind very radically very quickly on important constitutional issues, alarm bells should start ringing and people should start thinking about what is going on here. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who gave a romantic picture of the genesis of the—

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for their general welcome for the position that we have reached with regard to these amendments and the role of the Supreme Court and issues of compatibility in criminal proceedings with European convention rights or European Union law.

I also pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, who not only has made a very constructive contribution to this and other debates on this Bill but was a member of the expert group I set up under the chairmanship of Sir David Edwards; he has been contributing to this debate from a very early stage. I also welcome the 98 per cent satisfaction rate that I seem to have achieved from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I think that is a recognition of the amount of work that has been done by so many people in trying to bring this matter to a satisfactory outcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right to recognise that this is part of the agreement that we reached with the Scottish Government. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, asked whether three years was sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, explained why we had resisted the idea of certification. The comparison with England and Wales was that certification was brought in under the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to stem a flood. If after three years, there have only been five or six cases, that would be a relevant factor to be taken into account; the flood has not happened. Without in any way prejudging any inquiry, the fact that there has not actually been a huge number of cases would have to weigh in to the consideration, if that is how it indeed turns out.

I do not believe that that the composition of the committee and its chairmanship is inappropriate. Many commissions are headed up by a judicial figure. I do not think that to head up a commission with the most senior judicial figure in Scotland is inappropriate, given that one can be assured that a figure of such stature will undoubtedly deploy the judicial qualities which have put him or her into that position. In moving the amendment, I indicated that there will be a number of views. We would expect bodies such as the Lord Advocate, Scottish Ministers, the Scottish courts and the Supreme Court and a number of representative bodies—and the bodies such as have responded to the consultations which I held, including, for example, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Justice, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates—to contribute.

We did not seek to put into statute that it should be the Lord Justice General, not least because—in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—of what would happen if a future Lord Justice General does not want to be involved. When the time comes for the review to be held, should the Lord Justice General at that time not consider that it would be appropriate for him or her to undertake the review, of course the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments would work together to agree an alternative chair for the review.

By the same token, I do not think that we would wish to be constrained by specifying, as the amendment proposes, a Justice of the Supreme Court. For example, a recently retired Justice of the Supreme Court might be an appropriate person—either one from Scotland or one from another part of the United Kingdom. I hear the fair point that someone having had that experience might well be an appropriate person to be a member of the review body but I do not think that it would be appropriate to put that into statute. As I have said, it might not be a currently serving Justice of the Supreme Court but one who nevertheless everyone agrees is an appropriate person to serve.

When the time comes for the review to be set up, I am sure that soundings will be taken as to who would be appropriate to serve on that commission. With these words, I hope that I can reassure the House that the review will properly look at all the issues, not just those of certification but at how time limits have worked. I have no doubt that the issues of certification will be properly aired before that commission as they have been before your Lordships’ House and in the wider legal and public debate.

As this is the last group of amendments, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on Report. I believe that in these two days of Report, and in Committee, this House has done what it is intended to do; namely, to give proper scrutiny to the measures brought forward in this Bill. I am very grateful to noble Lords, and to my noble friend Lord Sassoon for helping me in responding. I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House will enjoy and refresh themselves over the Easter Recess before returning to Third Reading.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I may say how much we have appreciated the way in which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, have handled this Bill. I do not think that, from all sides of the House, this has been a particularly easy time for them but we have certainly done our job and very much appreciate the way in which the Government have dealt with this.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I did not mention that, but it is a pertinent point. Some academic bodies have produced reviews on it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. I know that my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has waited patiently to move his amendment and I am sure that he would appreciate it if I did not say very much. So I will not, other than to make one point to my noble and learned friend.

I thank my noble and learned friend for the response, which is very encouraging. However, for once he was a little more aggressive than I am, when he said that he wanted government departments to make the positive case for the union. That is not what this amendment is about—I do not want government departments to make the positive case for the union, I want them to set out, objectively, what issues should be tackled. I do want Secretaries of State and Ministers to make the positive case for the union and hope that my noble and learned friend might ensure that the Prime Minister—who has said that he will fight to defend the United Kingdom to the last breath of his body, I think—is aware of the strength of feeling in this House that government departments should do this. This is not something that can wait until after the Summer Recess. They should be doing it now. One by one, these departments should be setting out what the issues are. It would be completely disastrous, and actually quite wrong, if we were to allow government departments to step into the area where they were involved in advocacy as opposed to providing information. That would undermine the whole nature of the debate. There are plenty of advocates for the union—what we need are the facts. The First Minister is very fond of quoting Burns:

“But Facts are chiels that winna ding”.

I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Universities: Fees

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ensure that students who are resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and attend Scottish universities will pay the same fees as those living in other European Union member states.

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

My Lords, as I set out on Report on the Scotland Bill on Monday, higher education is devolved across the United Kingdom. This means that all areas of the UK have made different decisions regarding the funding of higher education. Any change to the devolution settlement would risk a key principle of devolution: that the devolved Administrations have the freedom to set devolved policies as they see fit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that very disappointing reply. Should the Government not get together with the Scottish Government and end the scandalous discrimination against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have to pay up to £36,000 to go to a Scottish university, where Scottish, Italian and French students can go for free, and where anyone else in the European Union can also go for free? Meanwhile, under the Barnett formula, people from the rest of the United Kingdom are funding a grant for Scotland that works out at about 20 per cent more per head than is spent in England. This is not sustainable; it is unfair to our young people; it is bad for the union; and should the Government not do something about it?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I recognise the sensitivity of the issue—and the tenacity with which my noble friend pursued it in Committee and on Report. It is totally in character that he should continue to do so. As I indicated, fees are only one part of the question. Different student support arrangements are in place in different parts of the United Kingdom. Support for English students, including English students studying in Scotland, is more generous than for Scottish students studying in Scotland. The universities in Scotland have also made generous bursary arrangements for English students wishing to study at Scottish universities. It was suggested on Monday that there should be pan-UK discussions on the matter. I indicated then that I would relay that to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That proposal has been relayed. However, I do not wish to raise unrealistic expectations. It might be useful for Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom to come together and discuss the issue.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the figures for each university institution. One does not really know until the applications are in and turned into acceptances. However, I hope that I have indicated that the average will be less in Scotland, taking into account bursaries. It is also important to point out that the United Kingdom Government provide support to English students. Some may say that it is more generous than the support provided to Scottish students by the Scottish Government in terms of living support. In that situation, English students are entitled to a loan for the full cost of their tuition fees, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they study. This loan is not repayable until students have left university and are earning over £21,000, and even then, at only 9 per cent of earnings over £21,000.

To help with living costs, English students are also entitled to a maintenance loan of up to £5,500 and a grant of up to £3,250. All students are entitled to a loan of at least £3,575 regardless of their household income; and English students will receive a larger amount of maintenance grant compared to Scottish students with the same household income. So if one accepts my noble friend’s amendment in terms of fees, the concern would be that you can equalise fees, but would still have a considerable disparity in student finance and funding. That is because of the more generous arrangements that the United Kingdom Government have made for English students as compared with the arrangements the Scottish Government have made for Scottish students.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that students from England would be burdened by substantial debts because they came to a Scottish university. However, the truth is that they would have no greater debt—and arguably a lesser debt—coming to a Scottish university than they would if they went to one in England. That is a relevant point. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, acknowledged the fact that bursaries had been made available.

We have tried to look at the possible outcomes of my noble friend’s amendment and we have identified three. First, Scottish universities could begin charging tuition fees to European Union students. We believe that this would be a breach of European Union law and could place the United Kingdom, as a member state, in danger of infraction proceedings. Secondly, Scottish universities could charge Scottish students and therefore also EU students, tuition fees. Thirdly, Scottish universities could stop charging tuition fees to students from the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That’s it. That is the one.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend has indicated which one of the three he favours. I do not think that anyone has actually suggested that we breach European Union law, although the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that at the heart of that is where the problem lies. If one accepts a devolution settlement across the United Kingdom, it will produce different outcomes in different places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I hope that I represented what the noble Lord said, that that is the point, and that is why there is such concern. It is a point that my noble friend Lord Stephen made with regard to the strong misgivings that the Scottish Executive had back in 2000 in having to go down this course. It had to acknowledge that if we went down this course of free tuition fees for Scottish-domiciled students attending Scottish universities, the consequence would be that students from European Union countries attending Scottish universities would have to be treated on the same basis. In Committee, I said that I was then a Member of the Scottish Government and that although it was not something we particularly wanted to do, it was a consequence that we had to accept, however reluctantly, if we wished to bring in a policy of free tuition for Scottish-domiciled students.

I indicated that I am more than willing to look at whether there is a way of resolving this at a European Union level but I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord or the House into believing that there is a realistic prospect of that happening, certainly before Third Reading. It is something that is so deep within the relevant directive that it would be a significant mountain to climb—although I know my noble friend Lord Forsyth is quite good at climbing significant mountains.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

But not in Europe.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

But not in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not sure that I follow that. What about the consistency of Mr Salmond’s position? I have to answer for a number of things in your Lordships’ House but, fortunately, I do not have to answer for Mr Salmond.

I agree with the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has encapsulated what the problem is. There are differential solutions around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland charges £9,000—so simply to adopt this amendment would not solve the problem across the country. I do not believe that the Bill is the right place to address this. I have indicated that we are prepared to look at the European Union dimension and that we are more than willing to engage with the different Administrations. I just do not want to suggest to your Lordships’ House that this matter can be resolved easily; it would be wrong to suggest that. Even if one does not accept the word “tsunami”, the consequences, which could include a complete disruption of the Scottish higher education system, are sufficiently uncertain for it not to be a risk that we can take. Even allowing for one year’s grace, the problems would still arise in subsequent years. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken in a very interesting debate. Given the lateness of the hour, I am sure noble Lords do not want me to respond to all the points or to repeat any of the arguments. I am very impressed by the argument from the Labour Party’s Front Bench that if something has been going on for 10 years, you should keep it. That seems a very conservative point of view to me.

In all the arguments about the practicalities and difficulties, all of which can be addressed and overcome, the overriding issue here is one of fairness. Why did I table this amendment? I spent a week at St Andrews. I went there nearly 40 years ago and I have to say that the students now are much harder working and much more focused than they were in my day. They are absolutely outraged by what is happening to them. Those students have a much tougher time ahead of them than any of us in this House had when we left university. We owe it to them to address this problem.

I was not sure whether I would have to press this matter to a vote tonight. However, I have to say to my noble and learned friend that we debated this in Committee, when I urged him to raise it with the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Perhaps this was said in confidence and I should not repeat it, but one of his ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office called me today to say, “How can we help you with the Scotland Bill?”. I said, “You can help me by accepting my amendment, or at least giving some commitment. What is your position on student fees?”. He said, “We’re waiting to see what the strength of opinion is”. On that basis, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Scotland: Constitutional Future

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree that we had a good debate about the referendum in Committee last Wednesday. I was able to give clear indications to the effect that, for example, the majority who responded to the consultation believed that powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that a great majority of those also supported the use of a Section 30 order. Our initial analysis shows clear support for a single question on independence, for the referendum to be held sooner rather than later, and for the involvement of the Electoral Commission. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord’s question, I hope that all departments will be very much engaged in setting out a positive case for the union.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble and learned friend for the undertaking to publish the full results of the consultation before Third Reading. That is very welcome and much appreciated. Secondly, given that the Government have decided not to proceed by amendment of the Scotland Bill to a referendum, will he give an undertaking that in the absence of reaching agreement on a single question organised by the Electoral Commission, the Government will bring forward their own legislation in the next Session of Parliament, as a Section 30 order requires the consent of the First Minister and his officials?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, a Section 30 order requires the consent of both Houses of this Parliament and of the Scottish Parliament. As I said last week, if agreement cannot be reached on a Section 30 order and if we are to try to ensure that this matter is kept out of the courts, which would be very helpful, the Government will need to consider what other options are open to them in order to provide a legal, fair and decisive referendum. Many people said that there would be no chance of getting a legislative consent Motion in respect of the Scotland Bill, but that is now within our grasp and is going to happen. I think we should focus our efforts on making sure, as I believe we can, that we get a Section 30 order for a fair, legal and decisive referendum.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think I might deal with the final comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I acknowledge the comments that have been made not just about this Bill but about the general timetable, but I hope that noble Lords who have taken part in our debates on many amendments to this Bill feel that we have had constructive debates. Almost without exception, the amendments that have been tabled have been pertinent and have done what this House does—properly scrutinise—and the Bill is the better for that. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, we sat until 10.41 pm last Thursday, even in the final three-quarters of an hour we had some important debates. Although we had been sitting for some time, some important and thoughtful contributions were made.

On the point about the Written Ministerial Statement paving the way to a legislative consent Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, fairly described the situation as he understood it. When we debated this before moving into Committee last Thursday, I indicated to your Lordship’ House, not for the first time, that work, negotiations and discussions were going on between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government, and that we were hopeful that they would come to a conclusion. On that occasion, I think I said that I hoped that the House, before moving to Report, would have an outcome to these negotiations. I thought that it was important, if it was at all possible, for that Written Ministerial Statement to be available to your Lordships before we met today. I am pleased that in the event that proved to be possible.

There was an encouragingly wide response to the consultation. We received just under 3,000 responses, including many replies from members of the public living in Scotland and beyond. There were contributions from businesses, academics, political parties, trade unions and many others across civic Scotland. A number of these matters will be debated when we move into Committee, but I can confirm that the Government’s key proposal in the consultation was that the referendum should be legal, fair and decisive.

In order to provide a legal referendum, we set out our view that a Section 30 order should be agreed to devolve to the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum. Initial analysis of the responses indicates clear support for that proposal. A significant majority of those who responded to this issue agreed that powers to hold a referendum should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Of these, the great majority supported a Section 30 order.

However, analysis of any consultation is not just a simple matter of counting responses, so I am pleased that our preference for agreeing a Section 30 order was endorsed by a number of constitutional experts, including Matt Qvortrup, Adam Tomkins and Alan Trench, as well as knowledgeable organisations such as the Law Society of Scotland, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Academy.

The fact that it is not just simply a numbers question was highlighted by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who picked out a point in the response from Professor Tomkins on the Electoral Commission and the question. There were a number of substantially written points, although obviously not 3,000. We want to make sure that when we bring forward a report—my understanding is that because the original consultation was a command document, any report has to go through the process of becoming a Command Paper—we do proper justice to the quality of the responses that we received.

Obviously, we will be able to say more in the debates. Nevertheless, it is possible to give some clear indication as to where the balance of opinion lies in response to a number of the detailed points—for example, on whether there should be one question or two, and on the timing; clearly, considerably more people want it sooner rather than later—and to indicate some of the specific points made by a number of leading experts.

I hear what my noble friend Lord Forsyth says about today’s debate and any amendments that he might wish to table for Report. The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Browne, have acknowledged that we have tried to structure a debate today on the referendums in a way that is to the benefit of the Committee. After the appropriate amendment has been moved, I wish to indicate the Government’s position by saying something about the consultation. I shall then listen to comments from noble Lords and respond at the end of the debate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Given that Section 30 is the Government’s preferred route forward, and given that the consultation process is overwhelmingly in support of that—that is what we are being told—is it the Government’s intention to proceed on that basis? As that basis requires the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, is it my noble and learned friend’s intention to bring forward some other Bill in the next Session of Parliament to deal with the referendum issue? It is clear that there will be no time to do this with the Scotland Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend is right to say that a Section 30 order is the Government’s preferred route and that it is our policy to negotiate an agreement to that end. However, by the very nature of a Section 30 order, it would not be done through primary legislation. Such an order requires the consent of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament before being presented to Her Majesty as an Order in Council for approval. That position has received considerable support. I will certainly endeavour to see how many more of the numbers around that particular point can be put in the public domain so that they can be number-crunched before Monday. I will also ensure that my noble friend’s comments on this are drawn to the attention of my honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, from what we have been able to digest, the clear majority of support in the consultation is for that process.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend, but I am actually anxious to save the Committee time. If the position is that the Government are planning to proceed on the basis of a Section 30 order, having had the consultation, and if that needs to be negotiated with the Scottish Government, and if Report, which will be the last opportunity to table amendments, is taken on Monday and Wednesday of next week, then to all intents and purposes the possibility of using the Scotland Bill as a legislative vehicle to provide for an independence referendum that would be monitored and administered by the Electoral Commission with a single question has gone. The Minister appears to be saying that he will proceed on the basis of a Section 30 order, but if he is not successful in that, presumably another Bill will be required in the next Session of Parliament. Is that not right?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I ask my noble friend to forgive me if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted what he said. A Section 30 order can take into account issues such as the use of the Electoral Commission. It can also take timing into account, as it can on the matter of whether there is one question or more. These are the things that we will seek to negotiate in a Section 30 order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Sewel is not here. I beg your Lordships’ pardon. I mean my noble friend Lord Sassoon. It was a Freudian slip. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be forever associated in my mind with the Scotland Bill because he, of course, was the midwife of the legislation.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Sassoon is not with us because this amendment relates to the extraordinary revelations that we had at some stage during our 10-hour Sitting on Thursday about how the tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament would operate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is in his place. I have always held him in the highest regard. I first came across him when he used to guide us through UKREP in the European Union negotiations on the social chapter. He is not someone who is easily lost to detail. He expressed a surprise that I and lots of people felt. I am of course not a supporter but, as he indicated when we discussed this before, the whole idea of giving the Scottish Parliament a tax-raising power to set the Scottish income tax means that part of the block that has hitherto been determined by the Barnett formula would have to be raised in income tax. If the Scottish Parliament wished to raise more, it would have to raise the Scottish rate of income tax.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I might have got this wrong but is Amendment 74B not about the privileges of the House of Commons? At the moment, is my noble friend limbering up to speak to Amendment 74C? I apologise if I have got that wrong.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. Amendment 74B is indeed about the impact on the privileges of the House of Commons. Everything that I said can relate to that if I think very carefully on my feet. Amendment 74B relates to the previous debate that we also had with my noble friend Lord Sassoon about enabling new taxes to be created in Scotland by Order in Council. That related to new Section 80B created in Clause 28, which is the power to add new, devolved taxes. It says:

“Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend this Part so as to … specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax of any description”.

I cannot think of an example since ship-money where it has been possible by Order in Council to create a new tax. We have very particular procedures for creating new taxes. The Finance Bill right up until, I think, 1969 had to be considered on the Floor of the House of Commons in Committee. Special rules apply to the conduct of the Finance Bill, including—still, I think—that it is not subject to guillotine. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, would be able to help me with that. I certainly think that it is not subject to a guillotine in Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a leeway, given to no other Minister in the Government, to have as big a Bill and as much time as required. That is because the Finance Bill is central to the whole nature of Parliament, which is about voting and raising means of supply.

The particular innovation in this Bill enables a completely new tax to be created. Mr Alex Salmond might decide he wants a window tax or a tax on landed estates or our local income to finance local government. All that is required is that an Order in Council is approved by both Houses of Parliament. As has already been pointed out, Orders in Council are not normally able to be amended and are not normally voted against in this House. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for telling me which amendment I am speaking to. I have tabled this amendment because I cannot understand how, given the position of this House in respect of taxation, it can be right that first, new taxes can be created by order in the other place and, secondly, this House should be involved in consideration of the imposition of new taxes by order. That seems to impact upon the privileges of the House of Commons.

In truth, however, this amendment is simply another opportunity to raise a serious constitutional innovation, which creates very unfortunate precedents. I am hoping that even at this late stage I can impress upon my noble and learned friend that the explanation we were given for these powers being contained in the Bill, when we considered them earlier, was that the Calman commission had recommended that there should be powers in the Bill to provide for additional, specified taxes. This Bill does not provide for additional, specified taxes; it gives a completely open-ended power.

We have just received, as was referred to earlier, an indication of the agreement that has been made in order to get Alex Salmond’s permission for this House to continue with the Bill. This is the deal that the Government have entered into. It provides for the inclusion of some new taxes—some of which we have already debated, such as the aggregates levy. Why can my noble and learned friend not amend the Bill on Report and make provision for those specified taxes to be included? I do not like the order-making power. He could put that provision into the Bill and it could be approved, then it would go back to the House of Commons and would be approved there. Why can we not have a list of specified taxes which are to be included rather than this open-ended and highly undesirable procedure, which I believe challenges the very basis of this House? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth indicated that this amendment was a hook on which to hang a wider debate. I listened to the debate on Clause 28, to which my noble friend Lord Sassoon responded and in which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a number of points. He raised the responsibilities and privileges of the respective Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has given a very clear answer on that. It is also important to point out that our role is in relation to a constitutional question: should the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for a particular tax, or should it remain reserved? It is not about how a tax should be structured, who should have to pay it and exemptions to it. That would all have to be set out in primary legislation by the Scottish Parliament, should a tax be devolved.

I am sure it is accepted on all sides of the House that the question of what should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament is an important constitutional issue. I rather think that if it had been suggested that the House of Lords should not express a view on a power such as that contained in Clause 28, I might be in greater difficulty in trying to respond to an amendment suggesting that it should. However, I hear what my noble friend says about the tax in relation to Clause 28. I do not want to engage in a rerun of the debate that we had when my noble friend Lord Sassoon was responding, or indeed anticipate a debate which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has indicated he intends to run when we come to Report. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to do so.

I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I think there is a genuine misunderstanding between us with regard to what the Calman commission meant when it referred to a specific tax. I think there are three other members of the Calman commission in the Chamber at the moment and I am sure that, if I have this wrong, they will jump up. The Calman commission identified some specific taxes such as an aggregates levy, which has been referred to, air passenger duty, landfill tax and stamp duty land tax. These were specified and specific recommendations were made in respect of them. Paragraphs 3.170 and 3.171 of the Calman commission report give a general background as to why we thought there should be a power to devolve other specific taxes in the future. By that, it was not intended that we should nominate in the commission’s report, or indeed in a Bill, what these specific taxes might be; rather, it concerned the concept of a specific tax as opposed to devolving a general power of taxation to the Scottish Parliament. I think there is perhaps a genuine misunderstanding on what the recommendation intended. I may have a better understanding of what that intention was, having been party to it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can my noble and learned friend give us two examples of taxes that might be added using this general power which he could not put on the face of the Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the point of not putting that on the face of the Bill is to make sure that there is provision for something that might happen in the future. However, one possible tax could be a dog licence tax, which my noble friend Lord Steel mentioned. I wish to make it very clear that it is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to have a dog licence tax, nor indeed, the last time I checked, was it the policy of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. I hope I will not embarrass my noble friend Lord Steel by what I am about to say but I remember that, in an election when I was leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats—it must have been the 1999 Scottish election—and my noble friend was a candidate in Lothian, he announced somewhere along the line that he wanted a caravan tax. I had to spend a whole day making it very clear that this was his personal view and not the view of the party. My noble friend seems to be a rich source of potential taxes.

However, one of the taxes that the Calman commission considered was a plastic bag tax, which had arisen in the Scottish Parliament where all sorts of ways had been found to try to see whether it could be brought within competence. That is the context. I hope that before we come back to this matter on Report, my noble friend will look at paragraphs 3.170 and 3.171 and will understand the context in which the recommendation was made.

I may be anticipating the debate we will have next week, but putting criteria on the face of the Bill would undoubtedly give the courts the ability to decide whether they have been met. The question of the extent to which these criteria have been met is, I believe, a political one, and one which Government and Parliament would be best placed to determine when a particular issue presents itself. However, it is clear that we will have an opportunity to return to this so I will not detain your Lordships further. I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have to say to my noble and learned friend that that was a disappointing response. I thought that if I gave him the chance to discuss this important constitutional position again, having thought about the arguments, he would perhaps say that he would narrow the rather wide focus of the Bill. I wonder how the House would react if my right honourable friend’s Budget was implemented with a Finance Bill which said that it would be possible to introduce new taxes by Order in Council, approved by both Houses of Parliament. I think there would be an absolute stampede, yet that is what we are proposing should happen to people in Scotland. Having praised my noble and learned friend, I think that he is just a little bit flippant about this. The reason I brought this issue back was not to waste the time of the House but to underline that something very important is being done here which, as I have said, breaches a principle established in this country after ship money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Yes, it does. The effect is that the amount of tax that people pay in Scotland will go down. Therefore, if the Scottish Parliament wished to be compensated for the loss, it would put up the tax so that it remained in the same position.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

This is where there is a misunderstanding. This is about making a shared tax base work in a way that is fair and revenue neutral to both jurisdictions. My noble friend Lord Caithness said that if the Scottish Parliament chose to change the allowances, it should bear the responsibility. The whole point of these proposals is that it cannot change the allowances. The personal allowance is determined by the United Kingdom Government. That is the nature of a shared tax base. The argument is that if that tax base is changed, there ought not to be detriment to the Scottish Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is very unlikely to happen, but let us say that the personal allowance had gone down rather than up. It would have been a windfall to the Scottish Government. The argument therefore is that on a no-detriment principle, it should operate both ways. I shall come on to explain that.

I shall try to make this as simple as possible, but it is not readily simple. From April 2016, the income tax base in the United Kingdom will be shared between the United Kingdom and Scotland. With 10p from all rates in Scotland expected to yield between £4.3 billion and £5.6 billion over the OBR’s forecast period, the Scottish Government will receive around 3 per cent of UK income tax receipts. The Scottish Government will be responsible for setting their rate of income tax and the United Kingdom Government will be responsible for everything else, including, for example, personal allowances. In such a system, the UK Government must be accountable for decisions that they take on the structure of the tax. Conversely, the Scottish Government must be accountable for the decisions that they take in respect of the rate.

I shall give an example—the example seen in the letter from my noble friend Lord Sassoon, but seen the other way. Last year the United Kingdom Government decided to raise personal allowances from £6,475 to £7,475. This decision cost the United Kingdom Government approximately £3.5 billion across the United Kingdom. Since the proposal in the Bill is to devolve around 3 per cent of income tax, the cost to the UK Exchequer from raising personal allowances would reduce to 97 per cent per cent or around £3.4 billion. The remaining £100 million would fall on the Scottish budget. It would be a cost as a result of a decision for which the Scottish Government were not accountable.

If the Scottish Government had set a budget and a rate of tax and had planned their public expenditure on that basis, and then, some four or five months later, as the result of a decision for which they had no responsibility or accountability, they suddenly found that their budget was £100 million short, the no-detriment principle is intended to make up that difference because it is a decision for which the Scottish Parliament will not have had responsibility. That is why I believe that it is important for accountability, because not to do so means that suddenly a Scottish Government perhaps have to carry the can for particular expenditure to which they were committed but could not longer afford, not through any decision that they had made, but through a decision made by the United Kingdom. The obverse is true; for example, if the Scottish Government get a windfall because the tax base has changed, it is only right that that windfall is recovered by the United Kingdom Government.

Under the no-detriment principle, the UK Government would compensate the Scottish budget for any cost that led to a reduction in the tax, but at the end of the day the cost to the United Kingdom is exactly the same as it would be if this Bill were not implemented—that is, the £3.4 billion that it loses in revenue because of the increase in the personal allowance and the £100 million that it then gives to the Scottish Government.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sorry to persist in this; perhaps I am just being thick. To take the example given by the Minister, which is the same example that I tried to give from the flow chart, if the Scottish Government find that their block grant is short of £100 million as a result of the increase in the allowances, that means that the amount that people are paying in tax in Scotland has gone down. Why can the Scottish Government not just use their tax-raising power to get the £100 million back from the people who have benefited? That is how the model is supposed to work.

If the Minister is not happy with that, why does he not go further and give the Scottish Parliament the ability to change the allowances as well as the rates? In those circumstances, if the Chancellor wishes to raise the allowances and the Scottish Government do not, they do not raise the allowances. I am making the case here for more devolution, not less—not on the grounds that I am committed to more devolution but on the grounds that this is a complete dog’s breakfast.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I cannot accept that last comment, but I can now see where my noble friend is coming from. I welcome anyone who wishes to express the case for going further. Of course, he is well aware that what has been presented to Parliament here is something that was worked on over a long period of time during which a consensus was achieved. There was never likely to be a consensus in favour of devolution of the whole tax base, as opposed to the tax rate.

My noble friend is basically saying that it should never be the case that a change in the tax base—for example, the increase in personal allowances—should benefit taxpayers in Scotland. He is saying that if the UK Government, who are still responsible for a substantial level of services in Scotland, take tax from the Scottish people, the Scottish people should never be allowed to take the kind of benefit that I believe they should—and I think that he once wrote a pamphlet on the benefit of raising the personal threshold—and the Scottish Parliament should raise its rate of tax to account for that. That is not accountability; that is a decision taken by the UK Government to bring benefits right throughout the United Kingdom.

It would seriously undermine the United Kingdom if Scottish taxpayers were not allowed to receive the benefit of a change to the UK tax base. It could mean that the tax change would reduce the amount of money available to the Scottish Government, so that budgetary considerations and calculations that had been put forward and might well have been voted through by Parliament would no longer be sustainable because of a decision taken by a body other than the Scottish Parliament. That is the essence of the no-detriment rule, and something that lies at the heart of the statement of funding policy.

I will read out the statement of funding policy, because the noble Lord, Lord Browne, might find that it echoes the passage from the Holtham commission that he read out. It says:

“Where decisions taken by any of the devolved administrations … have financial implications for departments or agencies of the United Kingdom Government or, alternatively, decisions of United Kingdom departments or agencies lead to additional costs for any of the devolved administrations … the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost”.

That is where accountability properly lies.

This is not something new that has suddenly been dreamt up. There are probably people in the House who were involved at the beginning of devolution and this principle has been in the statement of funding policy since then. I believe that it is fair that Governments —be it a UK Government or a Scottish Government—should be accountable for the decisions that they make, but they should not be able to export some of the implications of their decisions on to another Government, who should not be held accountable for the decision of another Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I have to say that I think this is a complete dog’s breakfast and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. My noble and learned friend has struggled valiantly to try to explain why the Scottish Parliament should not be accountable for a decision made by the Chancellor to change the tax base by altering the allowances. However, he has not dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about the politics of Scotland having to send a cheque to England, but I thought I would keep off that in case—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hope that I made it clear in my response but I shall repeat the point. This is reciprocal because it goes two ways. If a change to the tax base led to an increase or windfall for the Scottish Parliament, that would be recoverable—not by England but by the United Kingdom Parliament.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Indeed, and I understand that, but I am talking about the politics of it in the context of there perhaps being a higher rate of tax in Scotland. I would not like to be the Minister who had to explain why it was necessary. For example—thank goodness the Chancellor did not do it—let us suppose he had abolished tax relief on higher-income pension contributions. That would create exactly the kind of situation under this odd regime in which the Scottish Government would have to send a cheque to England. My noble and learned friend looks quizzical and perhaps I am wrong, but if the tax relief were removed there would be a windfall benefit for the Scottish Government. The product of a 10p income tax would be less, or are we saying that this would apply only to direct changes to allowances in respect of income tax? If that is the case, surely it would be sensible to allow the Scottish Government to make changes to tax allowances rather than compensate them for the effect of changes. There is an idea that they would be caught midway through a Budget by a sudden change—perhaps the £100 million example given by my noble friend—but, as we have seen today in the reduction in the top rate of tax or the increases in allowances, these are normally planned well in advance. Provision is also made in the Bill for the Scottish Parliament to borrow money and to have access to funds where there are changes.

My noble and learned friend has not dealt with the argument. The simple way to deal with this is as follows. If a change is made to the allowances, the revenue consequences will be that the product of the 10p tax instead of being £4.2 billion or £4.5 billion will be £4.2 billion or £4.4 billion. That £100 million shortfall could easily be recovered by increasing the rate of tax. The Scottish Parliament would not be disadvantaged by that because it would simply have to increase the rate of tax. There might be a problem of timing, but there is a provision for borrowing to deal with it, and that would give direct accountability. I agree that it is messy, but for the life of me I do not understand why we are going on with this exercise where my noble and learned friend will not concede that, rather than have a very complicated provision for tax, it would be better to provide that the Scottish Government are able to change the allowances as well as the rate if the UK Government see this as a great administrative difficulty for them.

My noble and learned friend did not deal in his response with the problems that arise from welfare. As I understand it and as his letter points out, eligibility for benefits will depend on net income. That means that if Scotland, as I suspect it will, becomes the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, net incomes will be lower and therefore it will be necessary for benefits to be increased. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will help me with this. If, for example, the Scottish rate of income tax was higher and the effect was to reduce net incomes and therefore more would need to be paid in benefits, would the Scottish Government have to send a cheque to the UK Exchequer to deal with the consequences of the fact that in Scotland more people were dependent on benefits? Politically, I think that that, too, would be extremely difficult.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has pointed out, the no-detriment principle is basically just trying to replicate the block grant and dress it up as income tax. The consequences will be that everyone in Scotland will end up paying higher income tax than people in England in order to finance a vehicle which does not do what it says on the tin.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There is a point that my noble friend is not addressing: no amendment has ever been brought forward to devolve allowances. It would be a major change to make at this stage of the Bill and he has not advanced the idea before but, that apart, it did not commend itself to the Calman commission or to the Government. Is he saying that the United Kingdom Government cannot make changes to a tax allowance which will benefit all taxpayers in the United Kingdom and that, if they do, they will be giving with one hand and the Scottish Parliament will be taking away with the other? That is an untenable position for a unionist to take.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is not my idea. It is the noble and learned Lord’s idea to introduce a Scottish income tax. We have never had a Scottish income tax. If my noble and learned friend is saying that it is not a good unionist position to have a Scottish income tax along with a UK income tax, I could not agree more. That is what is wrong with the Bill and why I am against it. If you want to go down that road and you have set out the arguments for accountability on that basis, then do it properly and introduce a system that is workable.

Let us leave the issue of allowances. When we have Scottish income tax it will be possible for the Scottish Parliament to set the rate at whatever level it chooses—and not only the basic rate but the intermediate rate and the top rate. Mr Alex Salmond can have a top rate of 60 per cent and a basic rate of 30 per cent if he wants, and you can have a Government in England and the rest of the United Kingdom cutting taxes. Therefore, it is absolutely central to the proposal that there is the possibility—I would say the probability—that people in Scotland will not benefit from wise tax policies such as those pursued by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.

When my noble and learned friend says that if you do not have the no-detriment principle people in Scotland will not benefit from increases in the allowances for tax purposes, that is nonsense. It would be up to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government would find that their block grant was reduced by a set amount, but they could get that set amount by taking the money from the taxpayers in Scotland, who would have benefited from the reduction in the allowances. That is the whole principle. My noble and learned friend shakes his head. The principle is that the Scottish Government are accountable for their spending and they have to raise that money through tax. The change in the allowances means that the tax available to them is less and therefore, if they want to continue the same level of spending, they will have to raise the tax. My noble and learned friend is running away from this because of the administrative difficulties that would be involved in dealing with the allowances.

On the point about there being no amendments on allowing the Scottish Parliament to set the allowances, I shall happily oblige: I shall table one for Monday and we can discuss this again. I shall be interested to hear how someone who is committed to the policy of making the Scottish Parliament accountable can possibly argue against it being able to set the allowances as well as the rates. You would have to have a Scottish allowance, of course, just as you have a Scottish tax, and it would operate in exactly the same way. However, by attacking this principle, my noble and learned friend is attacking the basis of the Bill—and I do so agree with him on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament has sent its response to its Scotland Bill Committee. In that, it indicated in similar terms to our Written Ministerial Statement what the agreement is. It has tabled or will table a legislative consent Motion on the basis of following on from that agreement. That Motion should certainly be dealt with before our Third Reading but obviously I am not responsible for the timing of debates in the Scottish Parliament.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

You have to admire the way that the Scottish Parliament is run. Its committee made 25 major recommendations for changes to this Bill which effectively involve devo-max. They were full fiscal autonomy and a range of other things. Those sat on the table from before Christmas until now. Due to the brilliance of my noble and learned friend, he and his colleagues had a meeting with the First Minister and suddenly everything that the committee said vanished like snow off a dike. We are told that a procedure will be followed that will result in the Scottish Parliament giving agreement. That really is the accountability that we all came to expect from devolution. We have here one man—the First Minister—deciding what happens and everybody else falling into line. Otherwise, it would not be possible to deliver this.

Fortunately, it does not quite work like that in this House. I have a few points to raise on this issue of legislative consent. The first thing we need on the record is the Government’s position on legislative consent. I pressed my noble and learned friend on this before and I hope he will tell us now that he has finished his negotiations. Is the Government’s view that legislative consent is desirable but in the absence of it they will proceed anyway; is there a new constitutional principle that we do not do things without legislative consent; or is the constitutional principle that we try to get legislative consent if it is practical? That is very important because it will impinge on the debates that we are about to have on the referendum, where the Government say that they will proceed by Section 30 but Section 30 requires legislative consent. I want to be absolutely clear where the Government are on the issue of legislative consent. In the absence of legislative consent, would the Government still proceed? That is not a perfect example because of course the referendum issue has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament as it is a reserved power. In respect of non-reserved powers for the Scottish Parliament, where are we on legislative consent?

I want to pick up one thing from the Statement that my noble and learned friend made today on what has been agreed. That is the first section, which says:

“The Government will ensure that changes in the Scottish Government’s budget are closely linked to the performance of its economy by adjusting Scotland’s budget to reflect new tax powers using the model recommended to the Welsh Assembly in the Holtham Report”.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, who is a man of considerable ability—as we have discovered in the course of consideration of this Bill, as well as from his previous work—has read the Holtham summary, and I expect that he is as unsure of the meaning of that sentence as I am. What does it mean? Does it mean what we have just been discussing and, if so, why does it say,

“changes in the Scottish Government’s budget”,

as opposed to changes in the Scottish Government’s income? The Scottish Government’s budget is what Alex Salmond dreams up one day and promises the Scottish people, but it has no relation whatever to the Scottish Government’s income, as people are about to discover.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

They may be very unfair on themselves but officials say, “Blame officials for poor punctuation”. I think I will reserve my position on that. I apologise for forgetting to pick up the point raised by my noble friend. As he and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, correctly identify, the Statement says that the Government will consider further devolution after a referendum on independence. I believe that that is consistent with the position set out by the Prime Minister and with the evolution of devolution to date. It has involved a careful assessment of the evidence.

One could go back to the constitutional convention or the Calman commission. It has involved consideration of its implications across the United Kingdom—it is important to remember that any devolution has implications for other parts of our United Kingdom—and it has generally proceeded with cross-party agreement. Those are all essential ingredients, perhaps not of porridge oats but for moving forward. The Government are committed to continuing to consider amendments to the devolution settlement on that basis. My party and others are doing their own thinking on what that might be, but, as we have seen to date, any substantial progress has been made on the basis of cross-party agreement. That is important.

I make one further point for clarification. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose is right: the word “modify” means to decrease or extend the subject matter of Schedule 5, and I am advised that the order which I took through the Scottish Parliament with regard to the Arts and Humanities Research Council was indeed a Section 30 order that added something to Schedule 5.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. To rescue the Minister, I think that paragraph 3 is headed,

“Further devolution in the future”,

which qualifies the sentence,

“The Government is open to considering what further powers might be devolved after a referendum on independence”.

I think that it clearly means that it is after the referendum.

I noticed that my noble friend did not answer my question when I asked what he could be thinking of, given the scope and nature of the Bill. As I get older, I get more and more interested in gardening. One thing that I have learnt is that it is a big mistake to pull plants up and move them before they have had a chance to settle and put down roots. It seems rather odd that we are discussing a Bill where the tax proposals will not come into effect until 2015-16. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, wants us to start thinking about further devolution now. If you are going to plant this prickly sort of bush, it is probably a good idea to see whether any flowers are going to appear on it before deciding whether you are going to do more planting. I hope that my noble friend will not be tempted to expand the meaning of that sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

When my noble and learned friend says that the Government will not be tabling any amendments to the Bill, he is ruling out using the Bill as a vehicle to run a referendum. The Section 30 procedure requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In the absence of that consent—perhaps over the issue of whether there should be one question or two—is he prepared to introduce legislation in the next Session to provide for the referendum to be conducted along the lines that the Prime Minister set out in what the noble Lord described as his porridge oats speech?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend was right to say that we do not intend to use the Bill as a vehicle for introducing provisions for the referendum. I cannot be clearer than that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend was absolutely clear on the point about using the Bill for the referendum. Everyone agrees that the preference has always been to use the Section 30 power, which requires the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. The Prime Minister stated clearly that there would be a referendum; that there would be one question; and that it would be run by the Electoral Commission. In the absence of agreement to that under Section 30, will the Government bring forward in the next Session legislation to give effect to that? If that is their position, I will be happy not to move my amendments and not to waste any more time talking about referenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what my noble friend says and the force with which he says it. I suggested that we might try to identify a way in which we can engage without finding ourselves in a position where a negotiation takes place in public. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, I do not think he would expect hands to be declared in any negotiations. Nevertheless, I do not want to be party to any mushy outcome, as I think was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. We have been given a very clear steer by your Lordships’ House, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as regards what things are important.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hope that I may finish this point and then I will certainly give way. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said that there should be a clear question on independence. I hope that I have made that clear. He indicated that each House of Parliament should be involved in that, and a Section 30 order certainly delivers that. He talked about the timing. We may come back to that when we discuss the next group of amendments but the Government have certainly made it clear that they would prefer a referendum to take place sooner rather than later. These are important points which strengthen our position in any negotiation as they are genuinely supported across parties and those attached to no parties in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am finding it difficult to understand what there is to negotiate about if we are to have one question and the Electoral Commission is going to run the process. I can see that there might be flexibility on timing, which I do not regard as very important. However, I share the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Maclennan, that you cannot negotiate on these central principles. The worry is that we shall end up with a fudge which we will not be able to amend because of the process. If my noble friend is saying, “Look, we’ve got the message; we are committed to”—the point was made to my noble friend Lord Lang—“a single question: the role of the Electoral Commission; and we are not going to move on that, and it will be part of the Section 30 order”, all of us will be a bit less nervous.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I tried to note down a phrase that my noble friend used: “We are determined to resolve this question”. We are determined to resolve this question. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said that there was little room for manoeuvre. The Scottish Government have tried to describe the issues that we have set out to ensure a legal, fair and decisive referendum as having strings attached. We are not attaching strings. We are seeking provisions, such as in any other referendum, that ensures that it is delivered successfully, and where all sides agree that it has been a success and a decisive referendum. The manifesto commitment of the Scottish National Party was to have a referendum on independence, not devo-max. Therefore, if we say that we support a single question, we are actually seeking to give legal substance, a legal basis, for something that that party put in its manifesto. That is why our position is very strong as we go forward in seeking to achieve a Section 30 order.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not want to prolong this. My question was: is the Minister saying to us, in pursuing his Section 30 route, that his position will remain the same—that there is no flexibility on these central issues of a single question and the role of the Electoral Commission?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There has been considerable agreement between the two Governments on the role of the Electoral Commission, which is vital. I do not believe that we would get a fair, legal and decisive referendum if we did not involve the Electoral Commission. A signal as to why I believe that we can reach an agreement is that already, since I made a Statement on 10 January, the Scottish Government have come a long way and acknowledged the position of the Electoral Commission.

I hope that I have tried to express clearly what the Government believe are the key issues on this matter, without saying—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this group of amendments has allowed us to look at a number of the practical, important issues which arise in the context of a referendum. As I indicated earlier, it is an opportunity for your Lordships to express views on this. Although we found consensus on a number of issues in the earlier debate, clearly on the issue of franchise there have been different views, to which I shall try to respond.

On a preliminary matter which I am not quite sure related to the independence referendum, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised a question on the so-called West Lothian commission, which is to look at the implications for the House of Commons of devolution. Its formal remit is to consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The noble Lord asked about submitting evidence. I was not aware that it was not receiving evidence—I am not sure whether the noble Lord meant oral evidence or written evidence—but the commission that has been established is independent of government and I would be wary of trying to intervene. The commission should be free to undertake such work as it deems necessary to consider proposals for handling the parliamentary consequences of devolution.

A number of noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Foulkes—raised the question of timing. The United Kingdom Government’s firm view is that the question of Scotland’s constitutional status should be resolved sooner rather than later. The continuing uncertainty about Scotland’s future is damaging to Scotland and until the issue is resolved that uncertainty will remain and, I suspect, grow. In our consultation paper we asked for views on the timing of the referendum and the majority of responses were in favour of holding it sooner than the Scottish Government’s proposal to hold it in the autumn of 2014. Recently, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out a timetable for a referendum to be held in September 2013. We believe that that is a practicable timetable and see no need to delay. That view has been expressed by others. CBI Scotland said:

“The timetable should certainly provide for sufficient facts and analysis to be made available to business and the wider public and for the issues involved to be fully considered but, on balance, we believe that the referendum can and should be held sooner than currently planned”.

By “currently planned”, I think it means the preferred date of the Scottish Government. There seems to be a general consensus in your Lordships’ House on this.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Steel would ensure that any referendum on Scottish independence was administered by the Electoral Commission. A number of colleagues and noble Lords expressed their support for this and, again, I think there was widespread support for it. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas gave some practical examples of when he believed that the Electoral Commission would have been of considerable benefit. I am sure we are not calling now for a recount of the Lothian regional vote in 1999. History might have been different in so many ways if there had been a different outcome there.

The Government’s view is that it is right that the Electoral Commission should oversee the referendum. It is a well-established body, known to be credible, independent and politically impartial. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, two referendums in 2011 were overseen by the Electoral Commission without criticism. It has the experience and expertise required to oversee this referendum and can play a key role in ensuring that the referendum and its results are seen to be fair and decisive.

Previously, the Scottish Government suggested that they would create what they called a Scottish referendum commission to oversee the referendum, answerable only to the Scottish Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Steel indicated, it is not a particularly satisfactory position when one of the players nominates the referee. The United Kingdom Government believe it is unnecessary to create a new commission—undoubtedly, that would be done at additional cost—when the Electoral Commission is already in place and has demonstrated its capability. We are pleased that the Scottish Government now agree that the Electoral Commission should lead on the oversight arrangements for the referendum and we will continue to engage with the Scottish Government on this. Again, a number of responses to the consultation concurred with that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

While my noble and learned friend has a drink, is this phrase of allowing the Electoral Commission to have “oversight” not weasel wording? Surely the Electoral Commission should be responsible for the overall conduct of the referendum campaign.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Yes, including the question. I notice that in the Scottish Government’s consultation paper, which was then spun as involving the Electoral Commission, it was invited in as a kind of veneer of respectability. The Electoral Commission has to be the regulator. Is that use of “oversight” by my noble and learned friend weasel wording or does it mean what we all want it to mean?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in our earlier debate on referendums, in response to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I said that it is the Government’s view that the Electoral Commission should fulfil the same role as it has in relation to UK Parliament referendums, as set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Its role would be the same in reviewing the question. My noble friend Lord Caithness raised this. The Electoral Commission’s role is to advise and to oversee referendums. It is not appropriate for it to set the question and current legislation does not provide for it to do that. It is my understanding that the Electoral Commission would itself have concerns about doing that. The PPER Act 2000 sets out a clear role for the Electoral Commission that we believe should be respected for a referendum on independence: to review and report on the question. We believe that that is the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the reason for disagreeing Clause 10 is that this proposed new clause will replace it. The amendment will widen the scope of the provision contained in Close 10 so that the savings provision does not apply solely in situations where legislative competence has been transferred to the Scottish Parliament only temporarily under a Section 30 order. It will ensure that the savings provision will operate where any alterations are made to reserved matters or to Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998, whether by the making, revocation or expiry of a Section 30 order or otherwise—for example, by amendment in primary legislation.

There is widespread recognition that clarity is required regarding the status of Acts of the Scottish Parliament in the event that legislative competence is reduced. The amendment has been tabled following comments from the previous Scotland Bill Committee and the Law Society of Scotland. It will ensure that Acts of the Scottish Parliament that have been validly made within the legislative competence that existed at the time do not cease to have effect purely because of changes to the boundaries of reserved and devolved matters. Such provisions would cease to have effect only if this was provided for in an enactment.

The amendment clarifies that provisions contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament that are no longer within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament will not automatically fall following that alteration of competence. Therefore, no gaps in the law will be created as a result. This means that a positive decision will need to be made to repeal provisions in an Act of the Scottish Parliament. This could be done in the legislation providing for the re-reservation or in separate legislation passed by the UK Parliament. As a result of this amendment, a provision in an Act of the Scottish Parliament that was once within legislative competence, prior to an alteration in that competence, will not for that reason alone cease to have effect. It will cease to have effect only if an enactment provides otherwise.

The wording of the amendment is intended to clarify two things. First, the previous operation of that ASP and anything done under it, up to point of the alteration in legislative competence, is not affected. Secondly, any alteration in legislative competence does not affect the continued future operation of the ASP, including any powers exercisable under it. For example, it would ensure that any powers of Scottish Ministers under an Act of the Scottish Parliament to make subordinate legislation would continue to be exercisable by them notwithstanding the alteration of legislative competence.

Proposed new subsection (3) of the new provision makes a technical amendment to Section 92 of the Scotland Act 1998, “Queen’s Printer for Scotland”, in consequence of the addition of the provision in proposed new Section 30(6) of the Act. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a sensible amendment, which will strengthen the provision that was originally contained in Clause 10. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not want to detain the Committee, but what problem does the amendment seek to remedy? Has something arisen? Secondly, if we proceed with a Section 30 order on the referendum, would this enable the power to hold future referendums to be retained by the Scottish Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, on the second point, a noble Lord asked me earlier—it may have been my noble friend the Duke of Montrose—whether it would be possible to have a Section 30 order that applied to just one referendum. The answer is that that is precisely what we plan in our draft.

The issue that the amendment seeks to address is that for some powers it may be thought expedient or wise to give the Scottish Parliament a temporary extension of power. I think I am right in saying that such a power was granted under a Section 30 order following the case of Somerville. We seek to make it very clear that if the Scottish Parliament passes legislation—as indeed it did under that power—under a temporary transfer from reserved to devolved power, it does not automatically repeal any legislation that has been properly and competently enacted when the temporary transfer of power ends.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I shall savour that apology. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his gracious apology. I shall bank it away because we may get to a point during the course of today when I will need it in order to bargain for others.

I am as interested as any Member of the House in where the discussions between the Government and the Scottish Government are in relation to the legislative consent Motion. However, I have been consistently of the opinion that the Scottish Parliament will pass a legislative consent Motion in relation to this Bill. I am also consistently of the view that we have promised the Scottish people that we will deliver the Bill in such a way that it can be enacted by a legislative consent Motion effectively and that we should keep our word to the Scottish people and to the Scottish political classes.

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

My Lords, picking up on the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, there was a commitment in the manifestos of all three parties—the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—at the last general election that we would seek to implement the Calman commission proposals, which this Bill substantially seeks to do.

On the issue of sitting days, I readily recognise the concerns. Indeed, I was told that the House would sit to debate the Scotland Bill on a Thursday and I have turned up today with my noble friend Lord Sassoon to respond to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated some of the issues that we have had to address. There was one day—Tuesday, 14 February—when, because of the time taken by the Welfare Reform Bill, we did not manage to debate anything. The decision was taken late in the day that it would not be proper to start our debates after 9.30 pm, and there was general agreement that that was the right decision. Our previous debate in Committee was on a Tuesday. Next week we will be in Committee on Wednesday.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, it was not on Second Reading but when we moved into Committee in January that the Government announced, as a result of representations they had received, quite properly, from my noble friend Lord Forsyth, that there would be a consultation. There were amendments on the Marshalled List to the effect that we would not deal with referendums until after the consultation period had closed. I indicated at the time that we would hope to deal with them in the week beginning 12 March, and today was originally identified as the date for doing so. However, as has been indicated, as we lost a day because of the ping-pong on the Welfare Reform Bill, we were not able to make as much progress on the last occasion as we had hoped. These debates will now take place next Wednesday, when there will be an opportunity to address the issues around referendums.

It is perfectly reasonable for my noble friend to ask where we have got to with the legislative consent Motion. A Motion was passed in the Scottish Parliament in March last year, which I suspect is the one that our honourable friend Mr Gauke was talking about. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, voted for it, as he was still a Member of the Scottish Parliament at the time. It is also worth pointing out that on the final vote, Mr Alex Salmond voted for it, too, as did many people who are currently members of the Scottish Government. That legislative consent Motion stands until any subsequent Motion is tabled that updates it.

The Government intend to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament in favour of the Bill—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend says that the legislative consent Motion stands. However, will he deal with the view of the committee—which is the latest consideration by the new Parliament, where there is now an SNP majority rather than a minority—that it was unable to recommend that the Parliament pass a further legislative consent Motion on the Bill until it had been amended in line with the committee’s recommendations? As we discussed before, there are 45 recommendations, which effectively deliver devo-max.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is perfectly fair and I will come on to address that. I was simply making the observation that there is, currently, an outstanding legislative consent Motion, which was actually supported by many members of the current Scottish Government. It is certainly our intention that we should have a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament in favour of the Scotland Bill, and I and my ministerial colleagues have been working very hard to secure the support of the Scottish Parliament for such a Motion. I am sure the Scottish Government would acknowledge the same.

We have been working together to consider and to assess the request for amendments to the Bill. It would be wrong to speculate on the outcome of the work being undertaken with the Scottish Government, but the key point is that I can assure the House that we are working hard to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will vote in favour of a legislative consent Motion for the Bill. It would not be appropriate to get ahead of discussions between Ministers—as noble Lords have highlighted, it is for the Scottish Government to propose a legislative consent Motion and we must allow the interministerial discussions to continue and not get ahead of them. However, I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had conversations yesterday with the Scottish Government. Indeed, before coming to your Lordships’ House today, I was engaged in discussions about moving forward, to get into a position where we can get an agreement.

The Sewel convention is about respecting the devolved areas for which the Scottish Parliament is accountable. It provides that the United Kingdom Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the Scottish Parliament’s consent. I believe we have gone further than with any other Bill in considering and taking on board the view of the Scottish Government and Parliament, and we will continue to work to reach agreement. The Secretary of State has made clear, in letters, phone calls and meetings with Scottish Government Ministers, that we will properly consider all their requests for changes to the Bill. I understand and readily recognise that noble Lords are keen to hear the outcome of the discussions with the Government, but I urge noble Lords to continue with their thorough scrutiny of the Bill, alongside our work to agree a legislative consent Motion. I hope that by the time we come to Report, it will have been possible to update your Lordships on the intergovernmental discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There was an expectation across the Floor of the House that we should defer Committee discussion until the end of the consultation. It was agreed between the usual channels that if we did that, it would necessitate a shortened period between Committee and Report—if only for the obvious reason of being able to get to Royal Assent, as the noble Lord pointed out.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I very respectfully remind my noble and learned friend that the Bill is before Parliament. In his remarks about legislative consent, he indicated that the Government might have to bring forward some amendments as a result of the negotiations that are being carried out by Ministers. Ministers cannot just presume the consent of Parliament. It strikes me as extremely odd that we should be half way through the Committee stage on a Bill that was introduced more than a year ago, and these negotiations are still continuing. I do not know if my noble friend is a fisherman. I am. If you want to land a salmon, you play it for a long time. In this case, the Salmond seems to be playing the Minister. He is deciding the timetable and what amendments may be put before us. We are being told that we can only consider them at the last minute, against a deadline. This is a ridiculous position for us to be in.

I have two specific questions for the Minister. Is he saying that, in the absence of a legislative consent Motion, the Bill will not go ahead? Or is he saying that he is in negotiation and will bring forward reasonable amendments, but that the Bill will go ahead? That is the crucial thing that he needs to tell the House now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there are a number of possible options if the legislative consent Motion is not forthcoming, but every effort is being made to achieve it. Obviously, my noble friend is absolutely right that anything in any amendment that is brought forward will be subject to Parliament. As we well know, it is quite proper and consistent with our procedures for your Lordships to vote on anything they wish to. It will be for Parliament to decide the final shape of the Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend said that Parliament will decide the final shape of the Bill, but there is a thing called a timetable. We know that the House will get up for the Queen’s Speech. We are against a time constraint, and if negotiations are continuing as the Bill proceeds, the opportunity for the House to do that will be limited. When my noble and learned friend says that a number of options are open to the Government in the absence of a legislative consent Motion, could he share them with the House? We are entitled to know whether the Bill that we are discussing will go ahead if we do not have a legislative consent Motion. That is a perfectly reasonable question, and the Minister cannot respond by saying that there are a number of options. There is only one option—yes or no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I hesitate to go back over old ground and reopen old wounds, but as I recall, I was the person who was pressing the Labour Party to have a referendum on the tax-varying powers. The shadow Secretary of State—now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—was dead set against a referendum but he was sat upon by Tony Blair, the then leader of the Opposition, and forced to agree to one. I think that I can claim a track record on getting the referendum that was initially opposed by the then Labour Opposition. But quite rightly, and to their credit, they followed through on it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am probably going to compound matters by saying that it was opposed by the Scottish Liberal Democrats at that time. It was not right to say that all parties called for a referendum, but we all campaigned in it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That absolutely illustrates my view. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, says that people’s attitudes to referendums are a matter of political judgment. I tend to find that people are in favour of referendums if they think that they can win them but against them if they think they might lose.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I did not have any doubt that we would win a referendum, I just did not think it was necessary—and I did take the legislation through on the referendum for the alternative vote. The point, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, is that there is no political movement for a referendum on these measures. He is also absolutely right to say that all of us who share the goal of keeping Scotland within the United Kingdom should have our eye fixed on the one referendum, in which we will seek to ensure that Scotland remains a full member and plays a full part in the United Kingdom. Any other referendum in the interim would be a distraction and could undermine the case, because it would obviously take up time and resources when we should in fact be focusing on exposing the weaknesses of the case for independence and proclaiming the case for a Scotland within the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, I very much hope that my noble friend will not press his amendments.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. I seem to be somewhat isolated on this issue. I worry about the idea that the tax-raising powers in the Bill will increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament. As I am sure my noble and learned friend will confirm, had those powers been in place and exercised since 1998 when the Scottish Parliament was established, the block grant which the Scottish Parliament had available to it would have been reduced by many billions. The exercise involves substituting a slice of the Barnett funding with funding that comes from the tax base. If public expenditure is growing faster than the tax base, the result is that far less revenue is available.

Tempted as I am to support the proposals because they would have had the effect of squeezing public expenditure in Scotland substantially and, I suggest, avoided considerable waste and the policies which have resisted reform of the public services, the notion that they would increase accountability needs to be looked at very carefully. It will squeeze the resources available to the Scottish Government over time and, in doing so, put pressure on them to use the tax powers, which by the nature of the gearing effect will result inevitably in Scotland becoming the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. I venture to suggest that at that point, many people will say: “Why weren't we told this? Why didn't we know about it?”. If I am still around, I will take great pleasure in saying: “I suggested that there should be a referendum so that people had a chance to consider these arguments and know what they were being committed to”.

I entirely accept that the political classes and the political establishment have got together in the worthy cause of stopping the Scottish nationalists getting control of the Scottish Parliament and taking us towards independence, but I have my doubts about how it will increase accountability. I suggest that my noble and learned friend think about this again. If a referendum was held—I assume that those on both Front Benches are confident that the Scottish people would vote yes to these tax-raising powers, although I suspect that their opposition to the referendum may lie in their doubt that they would—there would be clear consent for the exercise of the powers.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, suggested that a mandate was granted by the referendum on the original Scotland Bill. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the question was:

“I agree that the Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers”,

but those tax-varying powers were defined in the referendum campaign as being limited solely to 3p on the basic rate. This is far more than tax-varying powers. This is the introduction for the first time of a new Scottish rate of income tax. We are not talking about tax-varying powers here, we are talking about the ability to set a new rate of income tax that the Scottish Parliament chooses.

My noble and learned friend talks about opinion polls and surveys. I venture to suggest that if you go out and say, “Do you think the Scottish Parliament should have more powers?”, that is a bit like saying, “Do you love your mother?”. Of course people are going to say yes, the Scottish Parliament should have more powers. If you ask them, “Do you think that Scotland should be able to be made the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom?”, I think they might have a different view. If you ask them, “Do you think that the Scottish Parliament should be able to take money out of your pay packet?”, you might get a different answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, the St Augustine approach to the Calman commission is upon us. We have heard repeatedly that the Bill is to implement the Calman recommendations, which included devolving air passenger duty. Now we are being told by both Front Benches that the time is not right: “Oh Lord, make us have air passenger duty, but not yet”. The reason that the time is not right is that the Government are reviewing air passenger duty. We learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that the Government are prepared to devolve it to Northern Ireland and that the Secretary of State is prepared to give it to Northern Ireland. We are told that it would be difficult to include it in the Bill because there could be all kinds of implications because of changes to air passenger duty. We already have differences between Scotland and England. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace will know the answer to this question, but I am pretty certain that highlands and islands airports are exempt from air passenger duty.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Only one way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Only one way. One-way tickets. Perhaps I may suggest that this is a possible area for the Office of Tax Simplification to consider. You can just see how a committee has sat down and said, “Which way is it? If you’re leaving Inverness there’s no air passenger duty, but if you’re arriving there is”. I am told that it applies in both directions for Inverness.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

From memory, it applies both ways for Inverness but the relief is available only one way for airports in the islands and Wick. For the life of me I cannot remember in which direction. I think it is when travelling from the islands and Wick but I would have to check.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

So it is a policy that encourages emigration from the highlands and islands. The very fact that there is this degree of complexity torpedoes any suggestion that it would be possible to give this power to the Scottish Parliament now. Of course, if the regime changed then the revenue would change, and we have already heard at great length how this would be compensated for under the principle of “heads you win, tails you win”, which is apparently central to the Bill.

I entirely take on board the noble Lord’s chastisement. He was absolutely right. I tried to talk about the economic benefits but he is right to focus on the fact that this is not about tax. Actually, the tax revenue is not hugely significant but I believe that the impact of the tax could be, and he gave an example. I remember all the battles that we used to have in the late Lord Younger’s day about saving Prestwick, and I am aware of the stress and pressure on these islands services. I hope that I will not embarrass my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace but this is highly political to the extent that I think the Scottish Government leant on an airline—Loganair—to withdraw an invitation to him to address its 50th anniversary dinner. That is a disgraceful example of the poisonous way in which members of the SNP-led Government behave. Therefore, this is very political and very important to the islands, and I am disappointed that my noble friend is maintaining this St Augustine position, saying that he favours it but the time is not right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I listened with interest to the contributions of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because there is already a comprehensive code of legislation that makes detailed provision for the Scottish public finance regime. Safeguards and scrutiny are built into that legislation without the need for further provision to engage the Secretary of State, as proposed in my noble friend’s amendment.

Before I outline the relevant legislation, it is worth noting that, as a general principle—I think there is consensus on this—public expenditure must be authorised by statute or be reasonably incidental to that authorised by statute. This principle has been recognised and applied by the courts over many years. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, the Westminster audit and Public Accounts Committee system had functioned well in keeping the Government up to the mark on their expenditure.

The Scottish Government and Parliament are creatures of statute, and expenditure out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund is regulated by the financial provisions in Part 3 of the Scotland Act 1998. This includes Section 65 of that Act, which provides that payments from the Scottish Consolidated Fund must be for the purposes of meeting expenditure of the Scottish Administration—that is, lawful expenditure of the Scottish Administration—or meeting expenditure payable under any enactment. Part 3 of the Scotland Act also paved the way for the more detailed public finance legislation set out in the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.

Section 1(1) of the 2000 Act provides that the use of resources by the Scottish Administration and other public bodies or officeholders whose expenditure is payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund for any purpose in any financial year must be authorised for that year by the Budget Act and not exceed any amount so authorised in relation to that purpose. This means that any use of resources by the Scottish Government must be for lawful purposes and also have its basis in and be authorised by the Budget Acts that are passed by the Scottish Parliament annually, much in the same way as Finance Acts operate here at Westminster.

In addition, Section 5 of the 2000 Act provides that sums may be paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund only in accordance with a credit granted by the Auditor-General for Scotland, and the Auditor-General must not grant such a credit if the proposed payment would not comply with Section 65(1) and (2) of the Scotland Act—that is, if the proposed payment is not for the purposes of meeting the expenditure of the Scottish Administration or meeting expenditure payable under any enactment.

Part 2 of the 2000 Act goes on to make detailed provision in relation to accountability and audit, and gives the Auditor-General for Scotland key functions in relation to auditing the accounts of Scottish public bodies, including directorates of the Scottish Government, and examining the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of these public bodies. Reports produced by the Auditor-General for Scotland in pursuance of these functions are laid before the Scottish Parliament and considered by its Public Audit Committee. The Auditor-General for Scotland is assisted and supported by Audit Scotland in the exercise of his functions in this regard.

I have given that brief description to illustrate the existing comprehensive statutory framework that is in place. The Scotland Act 1998 laid the foundations for that framework and anticipated that the Scottish Parliament would flesh out further detail in legislation, which it subsequently did in what became the 2000 Act. It would be inconsistent with the current scheme of devolution for the Secretary of State to be given a separate regulation-making power along the lines suggested.

My noble friend raised the issue of surcharging, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. It is true that a system of surcharging was in place in local government regulation until the early years of this century. In Scotland, it was repealed by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. It was subsequently repealed in England following criticism in the Nolan committee's report on standards of conduct in local government. Although in theory it was intended to be a means of restitution, it did not achieve that purpose in practice and there were great difficulties in calculating the relevant sums. Therefore I do not believe that it would be an appropriate mechanism to graft on to the robust legislative code that is in place for checking spending by Scottish Ministers.

Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned the issue of the referendum. The purpose of the Government’s offer under Section 30 orders is to ensure that a referendum can proceed on a proper legal basis and that the power for the work that needs to be undertaken by the Scottish Government in connection with a referendum would also be on such a basis.

I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment before I lose my voice.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend is losing his voice; Members of the House are losing their stamina; we are dwindling.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Indeed, but I think it might be helpful if my noble and learned friend would indicate how much longer he proposes to go on with this, because the utility of the debate seems somewhat limited as we lose people one by one.

That was a very helpful explanation. It shows how out of date I am that I had not realised that the local government surcharge provisions had been withdrawn. I accept his point. If the Whip is suggesting that we adjourn shortly, I do not wish to interrupt that conversation.

I have one question for my noble and learned friend, which relates to the point on the referendum. I realise that that is a sensitive subject. If, for the sake of argument, the First Minister had decided to go ahead with the referendum without having the relevant legal powers and had spent £10 million on it, what sanction would be applied, and by what mechanism? In other words, can my noble and learned friend translate what he has just read out into what it would mean in practical terms?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend indicated that this is sensitive ground. If he cares to read the lecture that I delivered at Glasgow University on 23 January, he will note what I said about the importance of the rule of law and Governments operating within it. Ultimately, if Governments choose to step outside the rule of law in a significant way, as the late Lord Denning said, no matter how high you are, the law is still above you. There would be a question over whether the expenditure would ever be made. Even at Westminster, there have been cases where action has been taken. If my memory serves me correctly, in the Pergau dam case a challenge to expenditure was brought in the courts and a finding made that that expenditure was not justified. I am not aware that any recovery was made from the Ministers who originally authorised the expenditure, but any further expenditure did not proceed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Of course I understand that there is an opportunity in the courts for outside parties to apply for a judicial review or to challenge Ministers who were acting ultra vires. In the context of a referendum being held illegally by the Scottish Parliament, that would be completely disastrous, especially as it would disrupt the whole process and would make it difficult for us to get a resolution on this question one way or the other.

Part of me—perhaps the cynical, less charitable part—thinks that the First Minister would not be particularly disappointed by such an outcome because it would avoid the inevitable result which I believe the Scottish people, with their good sense, will give in a referendum. I understand that. My question really related to whether the Members of the Scottish Parliament who had voted for this or the Ministers who had done it would be subject to any sanction. Is there any process for this? How would it operate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am reluctant to speculate on that, other than to say that I think we will come back to the issue of referendums in our debates next week. The important point at the moment is to concentrate on the positive, which is ensuring that agreement is reached so that the referendum can proceed on a proper legal basis.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for dealing with this issue so carefully. I shall not press him on the referendum because I appreciate that it is an extremely sensitive matter. I understand the points that he made, which seem to cover the issue behind my amendment.

Perhaps I may say to my noble friend and to my noble and learned friend how much I appreciate the care with which they have dealt with the amendments during this session, which so far has run for 10 hours and more. I am sure they will also appreciate that those of us who tabled amendments for debate have used the time carefully to try to tease out a number of issues. I am looking forward to reading the Official Report over the weekend so that I can study some of the points that were made. On the basis of what my noble and learned friend said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I certainly believe that there should be transparency in the appointments process. Of course, we will come on to the actual mode of appointment of the Scottish Crown Estate commissioner, which would involve consultation with Scottish Ministers. It is fair to explain why, in terms of nomenclature and mode of appointment, we have different arrangements for the Crown Estate commissioner as opposed to BBC Trust members, for example.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I should say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I think he was asking for rather more than that. I think he was asking for an assurance that the appointment would be subject to the normal Nolan rules and procedures, not just transparency.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I give way to the noble Lord, who may be able to shed light on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the position is that it must be a person who knows about conditions in Scotland as they relate to the functions of the commissioners but it does not say that the person has to be of Scottish ancestry or indeed has to have a Scottish name. As we have already discussed and debated, they may have a number of other qualities and it should not be restricted simply to a knowledge of land management or the law. If we were to start to pin it down more than that, we would start to get into difficulties as we might be excluding people who have much more to offer and who have a lot of potential. Clearly, my noble friend is not satisfied, but if he has a better wording—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am a seeker after truth here, but the intervention of my noble friend illustrates the absurdity of the wording. It never occurred to me that “Scottish” would apply to the commissioner. What is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which is,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

gives absolute clarity that this is the person who will be responsible for Scotland in the Crown Estate. My concern related to the fact that it was suggesting that it was the Scottish Crown Estate whereas my noble friend thinks it might be the Scottish commissioner. Therefore, we have in this debate illustrated why the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is absolutely right. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but the problem with,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

is that it would suggest that the Crown Estate commissioner’s role was restricted to Scotland. That is not the case. The person is expected to play a part in the board as a whole and the person's responsibility should not be physically restricted to Scotland. That is why we believe that to use the,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

would restrict the role which that person could play on the board. That would be a very unfortunate thing to do. As we already heard, some of the previous Crown Estate commissioners who had a Scottish remit have gone on to be the first Crown Estate commissioner. It would be very disappointing indeed if we were to use a terminology that suggested that this person could not actually contribute to the work of the board when it related to matters outwith Scotland—or furth of Scotland, if I can use that expression.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If my noble and learned friend will allow me, if that argument stands then how have we managed to get away with the present incumbent being called the Scottish commissioner?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that we are getting away with it. I am actually trying to propose that it is the commissioner who will have knowledge about conditions in Scotland. There is a distinction, if one chooses to reflect for a moment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lady’s suggestion certainly sounds much more promising. It could mean that we were not putting an artificial restriction on the role that that person could play on the board as a whole. As other noble Lords have indicated in this debate, the contribution made by the Crown Estate commissioner who currently has responsibilities of a Scottish nature has been very important to the overall working of the board. If we were to limit it by territory, there are parts of the United Kingdom where the Crown Estate does not necessarily have any activity and therefore it would become very unfortunate. I shall reflect on what the noble Lady has said. It was a helpful suggestion that reflects the fact that the person ought to have a knowledge of Scotland and be able to make a contribution on it, but they should also have a broader expertise that they can bring to the work of the board. That is what we are seeking to achieve.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend so frequently, but his argument needs a bit of shoring up. As I understand it, the argument is that if the Crown Estate commissioner were the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland, he would not be able to participate on the board because he would appear to be concerned solely with Scottish interests. Can I take it, then, that the Government are planning to change the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland? On my noble and learned friend’s argument, that would imply that the Secretary of State for Scotland could not participate in Cabinet on matters that were across the range. That is an absurd argument, and my noble and learned friend might at least indicate that he will go away and think about it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the shoring up. The very fact that we have had this debate on the wording suggests that if we had proposed something else, I can imagine that he would have been one of those saying, “Of course, you mean that this person can make a contribution only in respect of Scotland and that is not acceptable as that person needs to have a wider remit”. As I indicated to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, her suggestion is worthy of further consideration and I shall consider it. If it answers the key point, which is that the person should have knowledge of Scotland and should not be restricted in terms of their qualifications—the broad totality of what is required for the board should be a factor in that person’s appointment, but the person might also have a special responsibility for Scotland or particular interests there—then that might well address the need without being unduly restrictive or indeed giving a misleading description of what that person’s role would be. I thank the noble Lady for that suggestion, to which I will most certainly give consideration.

Because of that wider responsibility, it is important that the appointment of all commissioners should be made by the sponsoring Minister, in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I reassure noble Lords that he will make a recommendation for the appointment of this particular commissioner only after consulting Scottish Ministers and listening carefully to what they say. That appropriately balances the need for both a Scottish interest and a UK-wide perspective on the appointment process.

There is particular concern over why there has been a different process for that appointment from that for the Scottish member of the BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has a different constitution from the Crown Estate. Under its charter, the BBC has obligations to broadcast to all parts of the United Kingdom and to have a member of its trust for each of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. That is very distinct from the position of the Crown Estate, which has no such requirements. Indeed, as I indicated a moment ago, it does not even have to have a presence in any particular part of the United Kingdom.

The appointment of all Crown Estate commissioners is by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Chancellor, reflecting the UK-wide responsibility of every commissioner. The UK Government will still need to discuss the Scottish appointments of both organisations with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the best people to represent Scottish interests are appointed.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about the status of the Crown Estate in the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s intention to consider the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee alongside the request that was made by the Scottish Government for further powers in relation to the Crown Estate. The Government believe that the Crown Estate operating on a UK-wide basis offers the best value across the whole of the United Kingdom, but we recognise the role that the Crown Estate plays in local communities and wish to work with it to ensure that it operates most effectively with them.

Particular to that is the coastal communities fund, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced the establishment of that fund, which will be financed by the Government through the allocation of funding equivalent to 50 per cent of the revenue from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. It is linked to revenue that is raised by the Crown Estate’s marine activities each year and the funding will be available on a bid basis. The Government will welcome bids from charities, businesses, social enterprises and local organisations. In that way, we can build a stronger link between the activities of the Crown Estate, particularly in coastal communities, including those that are affected by such activities. It is a very positive step, which recognises the role of the Crown Estate.

I have indicated that I will certainly give further consideration to nomenclature and thank the noble Lady for her helpful suggestion. However, I have also indicated that there is a distinction between the constitution of the Crown Estate on the one hand and that of the BBC Trust on another. The latter has a specific requirement to serve specific parts of the United Kingdom, which is why not only the nomenclature but the mode of appointment is different. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sorry, I am rather confused. Which Secretary of State are we talking about here? Is it the Secretary of State for Transport?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Yes.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

So the proposition is that the duty lies on the Secretary of State for Transport to make amendments to the Highway Code, which may have been made by the Scottish Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Yes, it is the Secretary of State for Transport—I hope that I said “she”—and that would be the case. There are regular revisions of the Highway Code. As I might have said or was about to say, Scottish Ministers were consulted during the last revision and it is intended that they will continue to be consulted.

It would not be helpful to have two separate editions of the Highway Code. I think I am right in saying that one contributor to the debate strongly urged that we should not have a tartan edition of it as well. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby. There should be one edition of the Highway Code, but of course it should reflect the differences that are there, and there is indeed a mechanism for doing that. The Government are therefore of the view that an amendment providing for an update to the Highway Code in the Scotland Bill is unnecessary.

Again, with regard to driving tests and the content of regulations, changes made to speed limits are somewhat parallel. Section 195 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 already requires consultation with representative organisations prior to making regulations relating to the driving test. This would include the Scottish Government. I understand the point that questions in the driving theory test about speed limits and drink-drive limits should reflect any new Scottish limits. As with the Highway Code, the driving theory test is regularly updated and significant changes to road traffic legislation can be included. Like the Highway Code, currently the content of the test is not a matter for legislation. To start adding specific requirements as to what the test must reflect, which may be subject to change in the future through primary legislation, would be inappropriate.

Nevertheless, I accept that important points have been made about driver awareness of any changes across the United Kingdom. To that end, I confirm that it is standard practice for the Scottish Government to be consulted when changes are proposed to the driving test. The theory elements of British driving assessments are already amended to reflect legal changes with substantial effects on what is covered in the assessments. I confirm that a change to the national road speed limit or the drink-drive limit, whether it were across the remainder of Great Britain after the transfer of power or in Scotland, would be such a change and would be reflected.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, motorway maintenance, for example, is certainly devolved to the Scottish Government. I rather suspect that the motorway speed limit is set under UK legislation. If I am wrong, I will either clarify it before the end of this debate or write to the noble Lord, either to confirm or to clarify. I certainly know that the maintenance of the motorway network is a responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

The amendment which noble Lords opposite also propose would require the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State to jointly make regulations governing the enforcement of the alcohol limit for driving if the limits in Scotland and England differ.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Before we leave the Highway Code, let us say that this legislation has gone ahead and, for the sake of argument, that the Scottish Parliament has decided to make the speed limit 60 miles an hour rather than 70. If I am a youngster taking my driving test in Hampshire and am asked what the speed limit is on country roads and I say, “70 miles an hour”, will I pass the test or do I have to say, “It is 70 miles an hour in England and 60 miles an hour in Scotland.”? Listening to him, I do not know how my noble and learned friend will answer that question. I would like to think that the answer is that you have to give both, but how will that youngster know that and what will the mechanism be by which this will be communicated?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think the answer is that the noble Lord would fail the test, because in fact it is 60 miles an hour in England. It is 70 miles an hour only on motorways, not on country roads, so with all due respect he might actually have found that he failed the test regardless of whether the country road is in Scotland or England, but I take the more general point that he was making.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What is the answer?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The answer is that it would be in the Highway Code and the question would stipulate whether it meant the speed for motorways in Scotland or in England. These are not insuperable problems. This reminds me of the days of the Calman commission when some of these issues were being teased out. I thought that if, prior to the union between Scotland and England, there had been no difference in the law on marriage with consent and someone had suggested that in Scotland you could marry without your parents’ consent at 16, people like the noble Lord’s ancestors would have stood up and said, “What about Gretna Green? People will be flooding to Gretna Green to get married!”. Well, so they did, and the heavens did not fall in and the union stayed together; indeed, it has been very good for tourism in that part of the south of Scotland. You can pick up these little points and tease away at them, but they are not going to end the union. The union allows for these differences if they are thought proper and appropriate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

This is all very amusing, and I take the point that I should have said dual carriageways—motorways, rather—with regard to the speed limit, but amid all that bluster my noble and learned friend gave the answer: it would be in the Highway Code. How will it get into the Highway Code if my noble and learned friend does not accept these amendments? Are we relying on the Secretary of State for Transport finding out what is going on in the Scottish Parliament and communicating that? How will this be achieved?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend is building a mountain out of a molehill. These matters are not exactly going to be slipped under the carpet. As I have indicated, Scottish Ministers were fully consulted in the most recent consultation on the revision of the Highway Code, and there is no reason to suggest that that would not happen again. Indeed, there might be even better reasons why that should happen if these powers are devolved. In the course of these debates my noble friend has put his finger on a number of important points, but I sometimes think that he is trying to make difficulties where in practice none would exist. A young person, or indeed an older person, who has not passed their driving test has to learn the Highway Code to take the theory test, and there are a whole host of questions to learn. Reserved matters change, and that is reflected subsequently in the Highway Code, but people are expected to be prepared for the test that they are about to sit.

I pick up my noble friend Lord Steel’s point on people crossing borders. My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he had driven through three countries in Europe where the speed limits changed. I recall driving through different states in the United States where speed limits changed. It was picked up that we are talking not about main roads—the M6 or the M74—but about country roads that could cross borders. I suspect that the same applies to boundaries in some other countries as well. There is certainly a boundary between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and matters are resolved there, just as when you have local speed limits.

I can think of one particular local speed limit on the west side of Shetland. I never understood why there was a 40 mile an hour limit there, in the middle of what was otherwise a 60 mile an hour limit, but you observed it, or tried to, and then when you passed the de-restriction sign you went back up to 60. It did not actually cause any practical difficulties. You can have such a variety of speed limits in local areas and around schools in built-up areas. The limit could be 20 miles an hour, and it does not seem to cause any difficulties. People see what the speed limit is—there have to be signs—and they obey it.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for giving us an opportunity to look at this part of the Bill that specifically relates to devolution in respect of air weapons.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, seeks to remove the exception the Government have made in the Scotland Bill to the devolution of powers to license air weapons. Clause 11 provides that the Secretary of State retains the powers to make rules under Section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 to specify weapons as “specially dangerous” and so require a firearms certificate, and also to make orders under Section 1(4) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to prohibit specially dangerous weapons.

The contributions of the noble Lord and my noble friend indicated that this is a complex issue and I take the general point about the legislation being in different Acts. I therefore fully recognise why the noble Lord wishes to explore fully why the Government are not devolving the powers that are part of the exception in Clause 11. This was discussed in another place. In many respects, the issue turns on the way in which the Firearms Acts are drafted and the need to ensure that all specially dangerous weapons are dealt with on a consistent basis across the United Kingdom. Like the noble Lord, we should perhaps go back to the report of the Calman commission, which recommended that only air weapons should be devolved—although we know that there are those who would wish devolution to be extended to all firearms. I know that other members of the Calman commission are present. I do not remember us having any particular discussion of subcategories of air weapons that might be described as specially dangerous.

The Government believe that it would be confusing and potentially damaging to create a situation in which much of the body of firearms legislation in Scotland could differ substantially from that in England and Wales. Calman, too, said that there could be,

“serious disadvantages in having different, uncoordinated policies”,

and therefore does not recommend devolving generally the subject of the Firearms Acts. That being so, we need to ensure that there is a common framework for the most lethal weapons across Great Britain, and this will include what are known as Section 1 firearms, such as hunting rifles, which require a firearms certificate issued by the local police.

In accepting the Calman recommendation that air weapons should be devolved, we looked to do that by adding an exception to Section B4 in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which currently reserves firearms by reference to the subject matter of the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997. Those Acts cover regulation of the manufacture, possession, handling, purchase or acquisition, sale, distribution and transfer of firearms. They distinguish between different types of firearms in certain respects and make different provision for different types, including air weapons. Air weapons are defined in the current legislation in accordance with Section 1(3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. This refers to an air rifle, air gun or air pistol which has not been declared to be specially dangerous by rules made by the Secretary of State under Section 53 of the Act, and is not a prohibited weapon.

I claim no expertise or experience whatever in firearms, but I understand that currently, air pistols generating a muzzle energy in excess of six foot pounds and other air weapons generating a muzzle energy in excess of 12 foot pounds have been declared to be specially dangerous for these purposes. This means in practice that an air weapon which has been declared as specially dangerous becomes subject to the requirement to hold and abide by a firearms certificate. It therefore ceases in practical terms to be treated as an air weapon under Section 1(3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. Control of these types of weapon need to remain reserved, which is why the power to make rules under Section 53 of the 1968 Act will remain those of the Secretary of State.

I reassure noble Lords that we are not looking to restrict the way in which the Scottish Parliament exercises its legislative competence in respect of air weapons. I acknowledge that there is a drafting complexity in Clause 11, but in practice the Scottish Parliament will be able to regulate air weapons in the way in which it chooses.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend simply stated that the regulation of those more powerful weapons needed to be reserved. Can he explain why?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because that takes them into a category for which licensing is required. We took the view, as did Calman, that there are categories of firearms which should not be devolved, those which might be described as more powerful, more dangerous, and that the particular air weapons which are the subject of our debate fall into that category and have more in common with firearms covered by other parts of the Firearms Acts than they do with other air weapons. It is because of their potential lethality. That is why there seemed to be a distinction between them and air weapons which are the subject of devolution.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am genuinely trying to understand this. If the Scottish Parliament was to have power to regulate those “less dangerous” air weapons, how would it do that without having a licensing scheme? If my noble and learned friend’s argument is that they are required to be part of a licensing scheme, I do not understand the logic of it. If the Government’s view is that the Scottish Parliament ought to have this responsibility, is the Minister saying that it can only have responsibility for weapons if they are not very dangerous? It seems to be a little illogical to me.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

With respect, it is not illogical at all. A point I will raise when I respond to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is that this is devolution of a power. How the Scottish Parliament chooses to exercise that power, if at all, is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. I am trying to find the relevant part of the Calman commission report, which dealt not with the point about especially dangerous air weapons but with the more general point about firearms.

The commission indicated that the UK Government of the day had,

“argued that any ban on a firearm which it is currently legal to possess would need to be underpinned by a compensation scheme. It argues that where such firearms are currently unregulated”—

which is the specific case for air guns—

“it would be difficult to prevent them being legally and cheaply acquired in one jurisdiction and passed off for compensation in another which had introduced a ban. This is not an argument against devolution itself as much as it is a caution to a devolved administration making difficult policy decisions it believes to be in the best interests of its citizens. Whilst there would undoubtedly be practical considerations and potential difficulties in any divergence of approach to firearms control they do not preclude the development of robust mechanisms for managing cross-border problems, information sharing and good communications”.

The Calman commission did not think that the case had been made for the devolution of firearms generally. The point is that especially dangerous air weapons are, in effect, firearms, licensed across Britain on the basis of what I think is widely recognised as a strict, world-leading regime. The Government do not wish to undermine that strict framework for the most dangerous weapons. Air guns that are the subject of devolution in this clause are not subject, at the moment, to what might be described as that strict licensing regime. That distinction is made, which is why the exception to the devolution of air weapons is being made in this clause.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps it might be better if I made a speech rather than asked questions, but I am struggling to understand the logic here. The Minister has read from the report by the Calman commission, which was chaired by Ken Calman, for whom I have considerable respect; he was my Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. I am not sure that he is actually an expert on firearms regulation. The Minister’s quotation from the report seems to be saying that this would be very difficult to administer and very expensive. That is not an argument against giving Scotland the power, because it might not use it. However, not giving it the power creates the kind of uncertainty that my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury talked about.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, quoted other parts of the report, which said that, notwithstanding that, there would be cases where devolution would be appropriate. Indeed, the commission identified particularly Scottish circumstances as to why air weapons should be devolved. That was the commission’s recommendation, which not only the present Government accept and are trying to implement through the Bill; the previous Government also agreed to the principle of devolving the power to regulate air weapons to the Scottish Parliament in the White Paper that they published in response to the Calman commission.

I am trying to make the point that some categories of air weapons are currently subject to a licensing regime because of their power. We still seek to maintain that reservation for that category, subject to the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 53 of the Firearms Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that that is the case. However, I think my noble friend is right that the power in the Bill does not relate to more powerful weapons. Especially dangerous air weapons are already licensed. We are providing Scottish Ministers with a power to put in place a licensing regime, as the noble Lord suggested, for air weapons, which are not regulated under the current GB framework. A very simple distinction has been made between weapons that are currently regulated and those that are not, and the devolution of power relates to those that are currently regulated.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sorry; it is very bad to interrupt my noble and learned friend so often but I just do not understand this. I can understand the concept—the wish—to devolve to the Scottish Parliament the power to regulate firearms, and the wish to give to the Scottish Parliament the power to regulate air weapons. However, I do not understand the concept that the Scottish Parliament should be able to deal with only some air weapons and not others. That will create monumental confusion and we could end up with a system where the less dangerous weapons are subject to more control than the most dangerous weapons, which would be absolutely absurd. How would we avoid that?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that my noble friend is seeing difficulties where they do not really exist. The clear view was taken by the Calman commission, by the previous Labour Administration and by the present Government that firearms as a whole should not be devolved. We are trying to explain—and I apologise to your Lordships if I am not doing so sufficiently well—that the weapons that under Clause 11 are not being devolved fall more closely into the category of firearms than unregulated air weapons, which are being devolved. Therefore, we are maintaining a consistency with regard to weapons that are currently the subject of a licensing regime vis-à-vis weapons that are not currently the subject of a strict licensing regime.

My noble friend says that that could lead to a stricter licensing regime. I have to concede that that is technically possible if the Scottish Parliament sees fit to do that, although I would have thought that some of the compelling arguments made by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury may well mean that a bit of common sense will prevail when it shapes these powers. That is the essence of devolution. If a power relating to air weapons is devolved, as long as it is consistent within the confines of the Scotland Act it is a question of how that power is exercised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I seem to recall going over some details during the Calman commission. It must happen already when shooting parties come from other parts of the European Union. The trouble is that I cannot remember what answer the Calman commission got. I had better not mislead my noble friend and I shall write to him giving him chapter and verse.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am still not persuaded by my noble and learned friend. Perhaps I am getting old and cynical. He served on the Calman commission and it is interesting that none of the other members of the Calman commission has felt able to contribute to this interesting debate and explain how they came to this conclusion.

One remembers the genesis of the Calman commission. It was an initiative led by the Labour Party, which the other unionist parties joined in with in order to prevent the case for independence and the nationalists being able to gain control of the Scottish Parliament. In that sense, it fell at the first fence. The idea was to look at what further powers beyond this Scotland Act could be devolved to Scotland. If I may address my noble and learned friend as a member of the Calman commission, one has the sense that he was scrambling around trying to think of things which could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Something that worried me about my noble and learned friend's response to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury was that he kept relying on what the Calman commission recommended. The commission made recommendations to the Government. It was the responsibility of the Government to consider them, decide what made sense and put forward their proposals. We are not talking here about the Calman commission's proposals; this is a government proposal. I respectfully suggest to my noble and learned friend that as a Minister in the Government he should be able to defend it.

I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be desirable to have another licensing system for air guns in parallel with the one that exists south of the border. I can see the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, rightly pointed to some horrible and tragic cases that occurred in Scotland. However, there is nothing unique about Scotland that means that these cases could not also happen in England. The corollary is that the Government should look at the licensing of air weapons throughout the United Kingdom. If one is going to pass laws—as my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury pointed out—one ought to be conscious of how one is going to enforce them. If we get to a position where air weapons are either illegal in Scotland or are subject to a different regulatory regime from that which exists in England, how will that be enforced at the border? Will we have guys on the A74 checking whether the precise nature of a weapon meets the regulations that have been passed by the Scottish Parliament?

Faced with these challenges, my noble and learned friend resorted to the argument that, “We are only devolving the power. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is putting forward arguments about what might occur if the Parliament chose to exercise that power”. However, this Parliament should not create the legislative possibility of creating great confusion and difficulty in the administration of firearms legislation. The clause would be better if it gave the Scottish Parliament the power to deal with all weapons. If my noble and learned friend's argument is that some of these weapons are firearms, it becomes very difficult to see as one goes down this road how one would defend not giving the Scottish Parliament complete authority over all firearms, in which case we would have different regimes on different sides of the border—and that would make controlling firearms almost impossible. We seem to be creating a difficulty.

My noble and learned friend accused me of seeing problems where they did not exist. I do not see why the current regime would not be capable of dealing with the concern about air weapons, and I can see how this clause will create great confusion and difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury pointed out, air weapons do not have serial numbers. It is asking a lot of a policeman to look at an air weapon and decide which category it is in. This looks like the product of a political fix. There was great public concern about air weapons; it was a big issue. The Calman commission said, “We must do something about air weapons”. It looked at the practicalities and found that they were very difficult, so we ended up with a camel designed by a committee.

I urge my noble and learned friend to look at this again. It is a very serious matter and I do not believe that the Bill addresses the practicalities involved. I support the noble Earl’s very modest amendment, which does not seek to attack—as I have just done—the basis of the legislation in the clause.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am pleased to have been able to give the noble Lord another opportunity to be helpful to the Committee, and at this point I will conclude my remarks.

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

My Lords, the Committee owes a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth for introducing this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, there can be no doubt as to the mood of the Committee on this issue, and views were expressed with great passion and sincerity. I think that I have some common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but I want to read his remarks carefully. I accept the sympathy that he offered me.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said in moving the amendment, we have to be conscious of the sensitivities of relationships between the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the respective Governments of the United Kingdom. He said that we ought not to appear to be imposing something on the Scottish Parliament, albeit that is what the impact of the amendments would be.

I am in a slightly more difficult position for a number of reasons, not least because it would not be appropriate for me as a member of the UK Government to express an opinion about policies of the Scottish Government. Others have had the freedom to do that, which I could perhaps envy, but it would not be appropriate for me to do so other than to make some more general points.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that the debate should not be about the principle of tuition fees; on the other hand, it leads to a question of choices. A choice was made back in 1999-2000 by the Scottish Parliament not to charge tuition fees for domiciled Scottish students, whereas a choice was made by the Westminster Parliament under the previous Administration and continued by the present Administration that there would be tuition fee charging. The problem, which has given rise to such passion, would not have arisen at all if the United Kingdom Parliament had made a different choice.

Likewise, if I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the Scottish Government had a choice as to whether they should fund universities in the way in which they have done, with the fee structure that they are proposing, or to make more money available to the funding council, as did the Administration which I was proud to serve back in 2004. Then, we made the deliberate choice, from among all the priorities competing for government funding, to give additional funds to the further and higher education sectors in Scotland. That in some respects is what devolution is about: allowing the Scottish Government to make these choices. A part of what this Bill is about is making sure that there is greater accountability for the way in which money is raised. That is the background against which we should look at these issues.

Two strong issues emerged in the debate: one was the £9,000 fees for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the other, perhaps drawn out more in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, related to the fact that European Union students do not pay fees if they study in Scotland. I fully recognise why the latter is seen as being very unfair to students in the rest of the United Kingdom. I make no bones about the fact that it is a result of European Union law, which, if it was to be changed, would require action far beyond this House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

No.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

European Union law could not be changed unilaterally. I know that my noble friend proposes in his amendment how we might address it, but that is not the same as changing European Union law, which I am sure he would be the first to accept.

When the package of free tuition for Scottish domiciled students was introduced in January 2000, my noble friend Lord Stephen—or Mr Nicol Stephen MSP as he then was—as the deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, indicated that the proposals were produced based on the best advice available given the risk of challenge by other EU nationals. He went on to say that he was disappointed with the legal advice and would like it to be different, but that was the position in terms of having to operate within the confines of European Union law. I would not wish to suggest who gave that advice because I am sure it was sound, but given that we had to operate within the confines of European Union law, that was how we got into that position. Let us not be under any illusion that it was something that the then Scottish Executive did because they wanted to do it. It was because they were obliged to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I agree and accept that, but we are perhaps kidding ourselves to think that those students in Scotland who chose to go to a university very close to home were not also taking into account financial considerations; albeit that they were fortunate to have so many universities of considerable quality on their doorsteps. If you came from the part of Scotland that I came from, nowhere was on the doorstep. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Forsyth for what he did when he was Secretary of State for Scotland in giving an impetus to the idea of the University of the Highlands and Islands, which, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan has indicated, has now come to fruition. It has taken a somewhat long time but it was worth it. I know how keen he was on it. It has made higher education available on the doorsteps of many people who otherwise would not have had that opportunity.

I never particularly like, and do not think this debate lends itself to, technical issues, but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is deficient in a number of ways. It reserves to the UK Parliament the power to make variations in fee levels between different parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that it is not really quite what he was intending. I acknowledge and appreciate that my noble friend Lord Forsyth has sought to couch this in a way that is more related to an issue of principle rather than focusing on tuition fees. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, with the possible exception of rights of audience, you would be hard pushed to actually think of any other circumstance where this principle might arise. I will clarify the position on rights of audience. I clearly recall that it certainly was the case. I know of many practising advocates now at the Scottish Bar who are also at the English Bar—and some, indeed, at the Northern Ireland Bar—as well as some solicitors trained in Scotland who now work in firms in England. It does seem easier at a practical level to go between jurisdictions than it was hitherto. The point of my noble friend’s amendment is very much focused on tuition fees, which he did not attempt to disguise in speaking to his amendment.

However, one should always be aware of the law of unintended consequences. One possible consequence of his amendment is that the Scottish Government could address this by paying the tuition fees of every student from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. My noble friend says that would be fine. Obviously it could be budgeted and other things would have to give way to fund that. However, it would suddenly mean that it would be hugely cheaper for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to attend universities in Scotland. My noble friend says that is ridiculous, but of course that would be the consequence.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That is the position for Greeks, German, French, Italians and everybody else in Europe—that it is considerably cheaper for them to come to Scotland, where they get a free education relative to England. It is a ridiculous argument.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is not a ridiculous argument at all, because it is very difficult if you are a student coming from Greece, where English might not necessarily be the language in which you would more readily study. It is far simpler if you are coming from Carlisle to go to Edinburgh than it would be to go to Birmingham. I can assure my noble friend that when tuition fees were increased in England and variable fees were brought in, in around 2004, there was clear evidence—which I was presented with as the then Minister with responsibility for higher and further education—that that would have a considerable impact on cross-border flow, and that was something that we had to address. Indeed, we did address it.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The first thing I will say in response to my noble friend is that this is not something that has just grown up over the years. As I indicated, it was anticipated from the outset—in the White Paper in 1997—that there would be this opportunity. On the specific case of Malawi, there is a provision in the Scotland Act that allows Scottish Ministers to give assistance to UK Ministers and the UK Government. The co-operation at the time between the international development department and the Scottish Executive allowed that to proceed.

My noble friend raised an important point about a referendum. The United Kingdom Government made it very clear, in our consultation paper of 10 January, that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on reserved matters, including on an independence referendum. We have also indicated a preference for a Section 30 order, as have the Scottish Government. By the very nature of a Section 30 order, it deals with things that are currently reserved. One of the earliest was on railways. Therefore it is inevitable that there will be some expenditure and some legitimate activity by Scottish Ministers, who have to discuss and negotiate the terms of any order—which, by definition, must relate to a reserved matter—but look forward to agreeing between the two Governments to put a Section 30 order to both Parliaments. That is clearly why it is important, not just in the context of a referendum but in the context of other areas where a Section 30 order has been used where there has been a transfer of powers from one Parliament to the other, that there is proper co-ordination and consideration. Indeed, in terms of a number of powers in this Bill, there has clearly been discussion between both Governments.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Could my noble and learned friend help with the point that was raised by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose about the position in respect of expenditure incurred on matters that are not within the legal competence of the Parliament? Who is accountable for that? Is it the Permanent Secretary as the accounting officer, the executive members or the Members of the Scottish Parliament? What, if any, sanction is there if there is expenditure that is ultra vires?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend has tabled an amendment on this issue that we will come to. I suspect that the accounting officer must have responsibility in these matters. However, as I sought to indicate, it would be very perverse if the United Kingdom Government invited a response and a consultation and then said that it was beyond the Scottish Parliament’s competence to engage in it. My noble friend raises an important point, and we will come to his amendment, which will be a proper opportunity to look at that in more detail.

As I indicated, in the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, it is very difficult to draw the line. It does not cure the problem, but it is not beyond the wit to come up with the appropriate Motion to put before the Scottish Parliament. My noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, made the point that the genie is out of the bottle. Indeed, it was intended as long ago as the original White Paper that there should be an opportunity to debate these reserved matters. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to withdraw his amendment.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

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

Without Moses!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not think that Alex Salmond would like being compared with Moses. After all, Moses never got to see the Promised Land. However, on reflection, perhaps my noble and learned friend is right.

One other aspect of the consultation paper is that he wants to rig the franchise and give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. My researchers tell me that there are only nine countries in the world that give the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, two of which are North Korea and Cuba, both of which have leaders with a high opinion of themselves.

I am not noted for carrying a flag for the Scottish Parliament but, to be serious, there are some very important recommendations here, on some of which I have tabled amendments so that they can at least be debated. I do not agree with all of them, but some of them are perfectly sensible. For example, this Bill provides for the control of speed limits in Scotland to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I think that that is daft, because you would cross the border and suddenly there would be a different speed limit. But it has been agreed—it is in the Bill and I do not want to question it. However, the committee of the Scottish Parliament says that it should not give legislative consent unless the Government agree to change the Bill, which at the moment allows the Scottish Parliament to set the speed limits for cars but not for HGV vehicles. It seems a little odd that we are prepared to devolve responsibility for motor cars but not for HGVs. I have tabled an amendment to which I hope my noble and learned friend will give fair consideration at a later stage. There are other issues, too, which should be considered.

I know that my noble and learned friend is agog as to whether I am going to press this matter to a vote. In order to avoid having to do so, I have tabled an amendment on the issue of legislative consent which says that if within two months of Royal Assent for this Bill we have not had legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament to those provisions which relate to its responsibilities, then the Bill will fall, and only those provisions which do not require legislative consent will remain. I hope that my noble and learned friend, after the consultation period has been concluded, and given the evidence of a lack of good faith on the part of the First Minister, will consider amending the Bill to provide for a fair and proper referendum to be conducted. In those circumstances—if the Scottish Parliament did not give legislative consent—we would be left with a Bill that simply provided for a referendum. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Forsyth for moving this amendment. He questions whether I should—I think it has been very useful. I hope we will move into Committee, but it is helpful that that has been placed in the context of the current political debate. It is a very serious constitutional debate, not just for Scotland but for the wider United Kingdom, as other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have indicated. The comments that have been made have helped to set that context.

I endorse what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Singh of Wimbledon and Lord Browne, about the importance of the tone of these debates. It is important that we conduct these debates in a very rational manner, putting and testing argument in a way that I think is typical of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated that it was perhaps unfortunate that there are no Scottish National Party Peers here. I do not propose to answer for the Scottish National Party but I share his view. That is a decision that the party has taken. Our debates are possibly the poorer for it. Without embarrassing anyone by naming names, many of us can think of one or two Scottish National Party Members who would certainly add to the deliberations in your Lordships’ House. Of course, they might then be able to move some of the amendments on the recommendations of the Scottish Parliament committee. I know that my noble friend Lord Forsyth will move some of them. No doubt the business managers will have noted his comments about the Moses Room.

We certainly took on board the comments that had been made about the fact that it would not necessarily be desirable for Committee stage of this Bill to take place when there would still be live questions on amendments tabled in relation to the referendum on independence while the Government’s consultation was still outstanding. That consultation will close on 9 March. I am grateful to all who contributed through the usual channels that the House was able to agree a Motion on Tuesday, which has been widely welcomed, to enable our debates on Clause 10 to be taken last. At that time, I suggested to the House that any amendments relating to the referendum or independence should be best placed before Clause 10. Perhaps I may express my gratitude to noble Lords who have tabled, and in some cases retabled, referendum-related amendments before Clause 10 rather than to other parts of the Bill in order that we can fulfil the intention of the order of consideration that was put before the House. To repeat what I said on Tuesday, the Chief Whip will ensure that the last day in Committee is scheduled for the week of 12 March, which will allow us to debate the referendum in the light of the responses received during the consultation period.

That said, we immediately found ourselves debating issues relating to the referendum and the consultation documents. While I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, down the road of saying, “Well, perhaps it is not appropriate to discuss these”, I think that it would be only courtesy at least to address some of the issues that have been raised. However, quite clearly, when the House resolves itself into Committee and we reach the amendments that have been tabled in relation to a referendum, we will have an opportunity to discuss those issues at greater length and in more detail.

I am very grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the lecture I delivered at Glasgow University last week. I was able to confirm the very strong view of the United Kingdom Government that under the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal competence to pass a referendum Bill. Things obviously flowed from that and we set out in our consultation why we believe that a referendum should be legal, fair and decisive, and the ways in which we might seek to do that.

It is fair to say that we have moved a long way in two weeks. First, I do not think that I had sat down in your Lordships’ House after having repeated the Statement before we had been given a preferred date by the Scottish Government for a referendum, for which many people had been asking for some considerable time. It appears to be the case that we have agreed that the preferred way to deliver the legislation for a referendum is by the two Governments working together. In their consultation paper yesterday, just as the United Kingdom Government expressed their preference for an order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to take this matter forward, the Scottish Government indicated that their preference was for a Section 30 order.

Without going into the detail of the Section 30 order, I know that my noble friend Lord Sanderson expressed the importance of the role of the Westminster Parliament in constitutional issues. Of course, a Section 30 order not only has to be approved by the Scottish Parliament but has to be approved by both Houses of this Parliament, which means that, assuming we can make progress, any order which we would wish to bring before the House is one which this House would have an opportunity to consider. Clearly, that will be in mind as these discussions take place.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps my noble and learned friend can help me on one point. He has been very generous in agreeing to reschedule the consideration of the Bill in order to accommodate the timetable of the Government’s consultation paper. Will he say something about how he proposes to deal with the problem created yesterday by the Scottish Executive’s consultation paper, which has a timetable that takes us beyond the period probably of this Session and therefore our ability to consider the Bill? How do we resolve that?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was going to deal with that matter later. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, also made reference to the possibility of carrying over the Bill. Certainly, it is my understanding that the normal process for carrying over legislation is that it has not passed to the second House for consideration. Page 642 of the 24th edition of Erskine May states that,

“carry-over is restricted to Bills which have not yet left the House in which they originated”.

Therefore, to try to carry over this Bill would mean not so much carrying over but effectively starting the process again, which would significantly delay implementation. That is why I believe it is right to continue with the current timetable and I will come on later to explain why. It is important that we make progress on that.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned the fact that, as we are well aware, the consultation paper was published yesterday. The point is that the UK Government’s consultation paper indicates that while our preference is for a Section 30 order, there is also the possibility of using this Scotland Bill. Clearly, if we are to get this Bill passed in the current Session, it would not be possible to put it off indefinitely. I note that paragraph 1.7 of the Scottish Government’s consultation paper states:

“The UK paper sets out two possible mechanisms to transfer the power to hold a referendum on independence: an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, or an amendment to the Scotland Bill currently under consideration by the House of Lords”.

It does so without any implied criticism. It just states that as a fact. We would wish therefore to make progress, although it is important for us to indicate that, but for the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been stricken down with chicken pox, there would have been a meeting tomorrow between him and the First Minister on these matters. Unfortunately, it cannot take place tomorrow but we are very keen that it should take place—I do not think the First Minister is keen that it should take place while the Secretary of State has got chicken pox—as soon as possible. It is a welcome sign that that engagement is happening.

I will reflect on the points made by my noble friend and others about the role of the Electoral Commission. However, the UK Government have made it very clear that we believe that the Electoral Commission is a proper body to have oversight of the referendum, not least given its track record in monitoring referendums since its inception. We are clear that that is our preference.

A number of noble Lords raised whether the question proposed by the Scottish Government is fair. We will certainly wish to consider the consultation document carefully but we believe, as set out in our consultation paper, that the Electoral Commission should have a statutory role to review and to comment on the question. As others have pointed out in the press today, it is not immediately clear from the Scottish Government’s document that they propose that the Electoral Commission will have that role. I understand that the First Minister has indicated that this may have been an oversight of the document but we will obviously pay close attention to that. Clearly, it would be part of the substance of discussions.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I recall the kind of situation that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, suggests. That emphasises that the Electoral Commission does have an important role to play. I cannot answer his specific question today, but it underlines more generally the important role of the commission. Further, as I have indicated, this will be a matter for discussions with the Scottish Government.

I have made the point that these discussions are taking place, but my noble friend also raised the question of what we should do with the Bill pending a legislative consent Motion in the Scottish Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, reminded us, the Scottish Parliament expressed its general support for the Bill, subject to some detailed concerns, in a vote in March 2011. Of course, the Scottish political landscape has changed since then, but as he rightly reminded us, those voting for the resolution included many Members of the current majority party in the Scottish Parliament, including the First Minister himself. He also indicated that there has been a response from the UK Government to the points made in the legislative consent Motion, specifically that provision has now been made in the Bill to allow bonds to be introduced in the future without the need for further legislation. There is a provision in the Bill to allow for reciprocal consultation between Governments in relation to electoral matters; provision to provide Scottish Ministers a role in the appointments to MG Alba; and provision to give Scottish Ministers responsibility for the disqualification rules for the Scottish Parliament. Obviously we will come to discuss Clause 17 at the next sitting of the Committee, if we get that far, which in a number of important respects is a response to the review undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, at the request of the Scottish Government. So there have in fact been numerous comprehensive responses to the previous LCM.

I can assure the House that we are considering carefully the latest Scotland Bill Committee report. Its timing is clearly not a matter for the UK Government, but I can confirm that we are in continuing constructive discussions on the Bill with the Scottish Government. It might be premature to table a legislative consent Motion when these discussions are ongoing. I do not particularly want to say anything that might prejudice those discussions, but I can confirm that they have been happening on a constructive basis, and I hope that they will provide us with a way forward.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan asked about our response to Miss Fabiani, who is the convenor of the committee. I can confirm that on 20 January the Secretary of State wrote to her and again made it clear that constructive discussions are under way. He also indicated that in addition to reviewing the report of the Scottish Parliament, the Government would have to have regard to comments and contributions made in your Lordships’ House on the Bill. I think I am right in saying that the letter contained a paragraph which reminded the convenor of the Scotland Bill Committee that the Government do not have a majority in this House, and therefore we could not necessarily guarantee that any particular amendments would be carried. However, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that there is constructive engagement on this.

It is also fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, that there is no clear timetable about when in the progress of a Bill a legislative consent Motion is passed. As I indicated, one was passed in the Scottish Parliament last March, which certainly meant that it was done before Report stage in the House of Commons.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have considerable respect for my noble and learned friend, and perhaps I may ask him to answer a straightforward question. In the absence of a legislative consent Motion, will the Government proceed with the Bill to Royal Assent, and implement it; or is it their position that without a legislative consent Motion, the Bill will not go ahead? It is important that Members of the Scottish Parliament know the score. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, if one were a Member of the Scottish Parliament who, like the First Minister, was publicly committed to the Bill, one would not want to do anything that might prevent it getting on to the statute book. The fact that the committee report has not even been scheduled for a debate in the Scottish Parliament, when we want to take account of what it has to say, is an affront to democracy—which might be a strange thing to say in this unelected House.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I sought to indicate that if discussions are going on, it might be premature to go ahead with a legislative consent Motion. That could prejudice the discussions when in fact there is an opportunity for agreement. I do not want to say anything that might be seen as a threat and jeopardise the position, as that would not be helpful to the process. We want to achieve a process in which a further legislative consent Motion can be passed by the Scottish Parliament, and I do not wish to say anything in the debate to prejudice that. I say that particularly as an engagement has taken place. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made clear, many powers that will be available in this Bill are ones that the Scottish Government have been calling for. The recently published document on infrastructure planning is actually predicated on carrying forward to fruition the borrowing powers which the Bill makes available.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sorry to press my noble and learned friend. I am asking not about the negotiations but about the constitutional position. So far as the Government are concerned, is the constitutional position such that they will not proceed to put this legislation on to the statute book in the absence of a legislative consent Motion—or might they? I do not wish to prejudice the negotiations but I do want to have clarity on the status of legislative consent Motions. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, gave us his view. I want to know the Government’s view on the status of legislative consent Motions. The Motions apply not only to the negotiations on this Bill but to Section 30 orders.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the point on Section 30 orders is clear—it is in statute. Statute law requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament and of each House in this Parliament. A convention is just that, a convention; it is not enshrined in statute. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, said, if a convention has been operating for a period, you have to be careful about how you deal with it. I am not going to say anything today that might prejudice the way in which that convention is dealt with. Equally, although there is a legislative consent Motion outstanding, I very much hope that there will be a further one to which the House can have regard before we reach Report.

I shall come to the question asked by the right reverend Prelate in a moment. However, we may well have completed the Committee stage before we have the report of the Scottish Parliament committee. At one stage it seemed possible that we might receive it but, for reasons of timing, that has not happened. There is certainly nothing sinister about it, and I do not think that the Scottish Parliament necessarily expects that we would hold back our deliberations in Committee until the legislative consent Motion had been tabled and debated. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is desperate to intervene.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That accords with my recollection. Given the limitations on amendments tabled at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, I am not going to get into a discussion on whether it would be before Third Reading or before Report. However, that—as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—accords with my understanding of the convention.

It is also important to note what has been noted by a number of contributors to this debate—that not only has the Bill been passed by the elected House, its content was included in the 2010 general election manifestos of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and, substantially, the Conservative Party. Each party which had been party to the Calman commission process made a commitment in its respective manifesto to take it forward. It is quite a rare event in politics to be criticised for implementing your manifesto commitments. It rather stands things on their head if for some reason you are criticised for actually doing what you said you would do.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked me as a member of the Calman commission—I suppose that my declaration of interest will apply throughout these proceedings—what response the commission received. I think that it is fair to say—there are other members of the commission present in your Lordships' House today—that we were not inundated with suggestions about where the boundary between devolved and reserved matters should fall. Many of the representations that we did receive—there were not a particularly large number—are reflected in the Bill before us. However, it was strongly represented to the Calman commission that the 1998 Act would have to be revisited because of the lack of financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament. That was understood when the Act was passed. We have had since 1999 a Parliament that has had complete discretion over how it spends the money it receives but precious little responsibility for raising it. I think that my noble friend Lord Steel said in a Donald Dewar lecture that a Parliament that was 100 per cent dependent on its revenue from another Parliament would have to address that issue. That is what we seek to do in the Bill. As the Calman commission proposals have been around since 2009—they elicited a White Paper from both the previous and the present Administrations—I suspect that many of them, to some extent, have already been banked. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated, these are very substantial proposals that should not be minimised. They will give to the Scottish Parliament a degree of financial accountability that does not exist at the moment. That is one of the reasons why we want to make progress.

The right reverend Prelate asked about the overlap of the Scotland Bill and a referendum campaign. I think it is fair to say that it has been known since last year’s election, and before the Commons debated the Bill on Report, that we would have a referendum campaign at some point. That is something that we have to take account of but it has not suddenly come up. It was clear in the Second Reading debate that we would go into a referendum campaign at some stage. However, the Bill’s powers are substantial and we should continue to make progress with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised some important issues about the referendum campaign that will have to be debated, as the substance of that independence debate, once the process is resolved. I think that many of us look forward to engaging in that debate and making a positive case for Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, warned that the First Minister was perhaps taking the view that the way to get rid of bad tenants is for them to annoy the neighbours. It is a good analogy up to a point, but the point is that we are not tenants. We helped to build the house and we co-own it. That is why the union is so valuable to us.

My noble friend’s Amendment 85 will allow us to return to these matters later in Committee. As I indicated earlier, although the Scottish Parliament has considered the Bill, your Lordships' House should be able to consider it in detail too. I am conscious that there are a number of your Lordships present who were here during the debates in 1998. I think that those debates well served the Scotland Bill, which became the Scotland Act 1998. The kind of deliberation that your Lordships can bring to a constitutional measure such as this is an important part of the process. I encourage noble Lords to continue deliberations on the Bill, and I hope that we can now proceed to do so in Committee.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, we have had a really good debate. My view that the debate would take half an hour has not worked out entirely right—we have had two hours and 17 minutes of debate. It is fantastic that we have had such a turnout given that the debate was scheduled for the Thursday after Burns Night when many of us would have been in Scotland and perhaps not as bright and breezy as people obviously were this morning.

I do not propose to respond to all the points but I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I am not sure whether I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for praising me for acting against my party interest in taking the view that I do on the union. Being serious, I think that we all recognise that the future of the United Kingdom is an issue that is above party, as this debate has demonstrated.

My noble friend Lord Sanderson talked about competition between consultation papers. Although I believe in competition, in this case it may have led to a certain disorder in the marketplace. It is really disappointing that the idea of carry-over proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, cannot work, because that would have been a solution. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Sanderson that the last thing we want is another Bill to deal with a referendum in the next Session of Parliament, when we will by all accounts have to deal with the future of this House, which I think will take on considerable time and turbulence.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is right to be concerned about language, but I just ask him to spend half an hour on the internet looking at what the cybernats write about many of those who have spoken in this debate. If he could convey those views about language to them, it would be very much appreciated.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, argued that it was important that there should be nationalist Members in this Chamber in order to put their point of view, but he seemed to have a bit of a wobble when I suggested that UKIP might be treated in the same manner. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester made the key point that it is important that this debate is seen to be carried out respectfully. That means that the consent of the Scottish Parliament is fairly important, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. He criticised the Prime Minister for intervening perhaps a little late in the debate. That might be a fair criticism, but I do not think that any of us could have expected the First Minister to have made quite so many changes so quickly in response, so perhaps we have caught up with a timetable that would otherwise have applied.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who I believe celebrated a major birthday recently, and who has a long experience in these matters, reminded us of the—I shall be careful with my language—flexible view on devolution which the First Minister has taken. He has been against it; then, in 1998, he campaigned with the Labour Party for it; then he went back to Scotland in 2004 and denounced devolution as a disaster; and now he is the high priest of devo-max, because nobody else seems to be talking about it.

I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. He shares with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, the fate of having something named after him which he is going to spend the rest of his life denying any responsibility for.

It was very important to have the contribution of my noble friend Lord Steel, who was the first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. Of course, in the original Scotland Act, it was thought that the electoral system had been designed so that no one party would be able to get a majority, and that it was unnecessary to have a House such as your Lordships' House to be a check and balance against the Executive, because the committee system would ensure a balance. Well, it has now turned into almost a one-party Parliament. The nationalists have a majority in the committees and there is no check and balance. Therefore the role of this House is even more important. The fact that the current Presiding Officer was taken from the same party underlines the lack of sensitivity to the point so well made by my noble friend.

In his address, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, reminded us of how important it is to get these matters right, and that the balkanisation of Britain is a matter that concerns every part of the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan reminded us that absence of consent is not acceptance. I agree. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the absence of the SNP as Banquo’s ghost. I plead with him to find another analogy because, of course, Banquo’s successors inherited the crown.

Finally, in an excellent speech—I hope this is not damaging for him—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, set out the answers. He reminded me of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said about the West Lothian question in response to my pressing him on where we were on the legislative consent Motion—a view which was echoed by my noble and learned friend in his excellent reply—which was that, with some questions, the answer to the question is not to ask the question. So on the basis that we do not ask the question now and make progress in the interests of what I accept is the democratically expressed views of the Scottish people, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

UK: Union

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure that most, if not all, of your Lordships would find it very grievous indeed if the United Kingdom were to break up. Nevertheless, in the 11 referendums that have taken place since 1973, only two were held nationwide. Indeed, previous referendums have been held in only one nation of the United Kingdom—in London and in the north-east of England. We believe that whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become a separate independent state is a matter for the people of Scotland. It would not be good for relationships within the United Kingdom if it were felt that some parts of the UK had been prevented from doing so by others. Our sincere belief, which I am sure we share, is that that will not happen—that those of us who believe that the values which we share across these islands are to be upheld will win a comprehensive victory, and that Scotland has contributed to the United Kingdom in the same way as the United Kingdom has contributed to the good of Scotland.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does my noble and learned friend not agree that if the separatists in Scotland wish to leave the United Kingdom, that is a matter that needs to be settled in Scotland? If, on the other hand, the so-called devo-max option is being considered, whereby matters other than foreign affairs and defence are considered in Scotland, that is a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole. It would effectively create an English Parliament and a federal Parliament, and that would have to be settled by a UK-wide referendum.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I agree with my noble friend that if the separatists were to have their way and Scotland were to vote to leave the United Kingdom, that should be determined by the people of Scotland. I also agree with him that the so-called devo-max proposal, as far as one can understand what it is—in our exchanges last week, noble Lords suggested that it was a product without a brand or a brand without a product; I cannot remember which way round it was—has implications for other parts of the UK, and we are certainly well seized of that fact.

Scotland: Constitutional Future

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. I certainly entirely endorse the latter part of what he has just said. Having campaigned in both the 1979 and the 1997 referendums, I am certainly clear that the fact that in the 1997 referendum the campaigns and the rules were very clear and nobody had any cause to say that there was any jiggery-pokery, or that the goalposts were being shifted, meant that those on the losing side nevertheless felt able to accept the outcome. That is the goal that we all want to see in this. I say that in terms of the earlier part of his question, too. Anyone who reads the consultation paper will see that it is by far and away not a Stalinist document but one that invites consensus and provides a route map towards consensus. That is the spirit in which it is offered to the people of Scotland.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister and my noble friend on this initiative. Could he help me with something that is causing me some bewilderment? The SNP manifesto, on which it got 45 per cent of the vote, says:

“We will give Scots the opportunity to decide our nation's future in an independence referendum”.

In that case, why is this initiative by the Government so unpopular with the Scottish nationalists?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is a very fair question. I cannot understand why they would not wish to have the proposal to allow them to achieve their manifesto goal in a legal way, given that back in 2009 the First Minister was calling for a referendum in November 2010. Here we are providing a legal route. But the means of making it fair and decisive are perfectly reasonable proposals on which we are consulting, and I very much hope that on reflection the Scottish Government will agree that this is a proper way forward and will enter into the consultation in that spirit. This is not just a consultation for Governments; we hope that people from all walks of life, in Scotland and furth of Scotland, will also respond.

UK: Union

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

By asking that question, my noble friend makes it very clear that the First Minister of Scotland and his party have a host of questions to answer, not least on the currency because there are even those who think that if Scotland wished to join the European Union it would be obliged to adopt the euro. Andrew Hughes Hallett, who is on the First Minister’s Council of Economic Advisers, indicated that, as was reported earlier this week. It would be rather odd. Some countries, but not many, adopt the currency of a foreign country but have no powers. It just underlines what a weak position Scotland would be in.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Could my noble and learned friend consider the idea of establishing an independent commission to look at the benefits of the union to the United Kingdom as a whole and the consequences of separation, given that the nationalists are determined to hold a referendum on independence, so that everyone can see what the consequences could be and what the facts are?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes a very interesting and very constructive suggestion. He will understand that I am not in a position to accede to it from this Dispatch Box, although I will consider it. In the mean time we will not wait for the setting up of any commission that might come along. We will continue to make the case for the United Kingdom.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, both sides of the usual channels have no doubt heard the points that have been made. I reiterate the point that this is a Bill of constitutional importance, and I think that it is important that we now make progress to debate it. Given the quality of the speakers—as is the case in of all your Lordships’ House’s debates—I think that, looking down the list of former Secretaries of State, former law officers, former Members of the Scottish Parliament, former junior Ministers in the Scottish and Scotland Offices, we are clearly going to have a well-informed debate, and one that is worthy of the importance of this Bill. I believe that the Bill will strengthen Scotland’s position in the United Kingdom, it will empower the Scottish Parliament, and it will make that Parliament more accountable to the Scottish people. It delivers on our coalition agreement to implement the recommendations of the Calman commission. It is in fact the biggest transfer of fiscal responsibility within the United Kingdom since the Act of Union in 1707, and delivers the first major change to the workings of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers since that Parliament was established in 1999.

For its first decade and more, the Scottish Parliament has been accountable to the Scottish people for the money it spends. We believe the time is now right to make it accountable for the money it raises—one of the fundamental changes that this Bill will bring about. Many noble Lords present will remember, and indeed took part in, the debates on the Scotland Bill in 1998 in one House or the other. They will recall, however, as any look at the record shows, the significant scrutiny that this House afforded to the Scotland Bill at that time. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, allowing himself a small chuckle. With all due respect to all the others who took part, he did much of the heavy lifting on that Bill and deserves credit for that. I have no doubt that those who served in scrutinising the 1998 Bill, and indeed many other noble Lords, will afford the current Bill the same level of examination to ensure that it too delivers the new powers that will benefit Scotland.

I believe that the Scottish Parliament has been a success and is here to stay. Indeed, that was the first conclusion of the Calman commission. The Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which I and other noble Lords were members, built up the case for the 1998 Act and set the country on the path towards creating a Scottish Parliament, which is now an important part of Scottish life. Decisions are now taken closer to the people they affect. Decisions on housing, education and hospitals are made in Scotland, for the good of the Scottish people by a Parliament that they have elected to serve them. Devolution in Scotland has delivered notable policy initiatives: free personal care; a Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency; long-overdue land reform; proportional representation for local government elections; a smoking ban in public places, which paved the way for a similar measure in other parts of the United Kingdom. In what seems a relatively short period, devolution has become central to the way in which we work. Many of us in this Chamber have worked either for or with devolution and the Parliament in Scotland.

The Calman commission was established to review the settlement in light of experience and to recommend changes to enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better. Improving the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament was an important part of the commission’s remit, which was agreed by the Scottish Parliament and endorsed by the then United Kingdom Government. Membership of the commission included representatives from the three main United Kingdom political parties and from local government, experts in Scots law, business, education, community organisations and the trade unions. I must tell noble Lords that when, in 2008, I agreed to sit on the commission for the Liberal Democrats I was not anticipating that, three years later, I would be the Minister charged with taking the recommendations through the House—not that it would have had any influence on recommendations that I agreed to.

We wish to thank the chair of the commission, Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, the other commissioners and Professor Anton Muscatelli and the independent expert group on finance, which supported the commission in the work that it did. It was work invaluable to the future of devolution and I particularly look forward to the contributions of my fellow commissioners today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, the noble Lords, Lord Elder and Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who brought their wealth of experience and understanding to the commission. The Scotland Bill has enjoyed widespread support across the political spectrum. Consensus on its purpose and direction has been the order of the day. This Government are delivering the next chapter in Scottish devolution and remain committed to doing so, with the support of the three main United Kingdom-wide parties. It is on the basis of cross-party consensus that the Bill has been taken forward, alongside a commitment to consider suggestions from others, including the Scottish Government, as we proceed.

Those of us who campaigned for devolution wanted more decisions taken in Scotland by a Scottish Parliament but we also wanted to retain many of the benefits, to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, which come from remaining part of our United Kingdom. The devolution settlement was about getting that balance right. Of course, there will always be those who think that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for everything and there are those who think that devolution has already gone too far. However, by and large, we have managed to maintain consensus while bringing forward a strong set of improvements to the original settlement. The fact that the Calman commission was not inundated with representations to make fundamental changes to the division between devolved and reserved matters is, I believe, testimony to the judgment of the architects of the 1998 Act.

We will strengthen devolution by providing new powers to the Holyrood Parliament. In 1997, the Scottish public voted for a Parliament that could change the rate of tax within a limited margin. That power has never been used. In fact, the current Scottish Government who, as we know, are forever calling for new powers actually allowed this tax power to lapse last year. The United Kingdom Government do not want to see Holyrood lose its fiscal powers, rather the opposite. The financial powers contained in the Bill are, as I have indicated, the largest transfer of financial powers out of London since the United Kingdom was created. The Parliament will become accountable for raising more than a third of the money it spends.

The Bill will create a Scottish rate of income tax by cutting 10p from every income tax rate, reducing the Scottish block grant in proportion and obliging the Scottish Parliament to set a new rate to meet its spending plans. It will allow Scottish Ministers to borrow up to £500 million for current spending and up to £2.2 billion in capital spending. In the light of a request from the Scottish Parliament, we will make part of that capital investment available in pre-payments for approved projects by 2012.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The Bill abolishes the variable rate of income tax—the 3p rate, which was approved by a referendum of the Scottish people—so it is taking away a specific power approved by referendum. Why do the Government not think it necessary to have a referendum, given that they are going to introduce a further power that goes beyond the 3p they are abolishing and which was approved by the people in a referendum?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The answer to that is that we have absolutely moved forward; the Scottish Parliament has been established and it is very clear that what we are proposing has commanded widespread consensus within Scotland. It was not only the product of a commission that took extensive evidence. It has been supported by the three UK-wide political parties and by the representatives of the Scottish people in the Scottish Parliament, as I will indicate later, by 121 votes to three. There is a broad consensus for that in Scotland and, with the honourable exception of my noble friend, I have not really heard any clamour for a referendum on the specific tax powers involved in this Bill.

As I indicated, it will also devolve landfill tax, stamp duty and the power to create new taxes. The Bill will phase in these powers up to 2016. It will provide a whole new set of policy levers that will be at the disposal of the Scottish Government elected in that year. In his David Hume Institute address last week, my colleague the Secretary of State set out some possibilities that would be open to future Scottish Ministers. With their new tax powers, the Scottish Government could stimulate the construction sector and boost the housing market by cutting stamp duty by, for example, 5 per cent at a cost of £25 million to the Scottish budget, or ensure that Scotland competes to be the greenest country in Europe by proposing innovative new green taxes, offset by other tax cuts, to ensure that Scotland moves the tax burden from people to pollution. They could use the new Scottish income tax to raise investment in public services higher than is the case in other parts of the United Kingdom, or do just the opposite—cutting the rate to attract bright and ambitious people to Scotland and reduce the brain drain from within.

Those are all options. We are providing the power; it will be up to the Scottish Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland, as to how those options are exercised. However, the Command Paper published in November alongside the Bill stated that for every penny by which one increases income tax, the yield will be around £450 million—or 1.7 per cent of the present Scottish budget. That gives a flavour of the considerable powers that this Bill provides to Scottish Ministers. This is a big shift to the financing of public services in Scotland. It will deliver real financial accountability, as more than a third of current spending will be funded by taxes determined and raised in Scotland. It will give the Scottish Parliament a real stake in Scottish economic performance, as a significant proportion of the budget for public services in Scotland will come directly from taxes set and raised in Scotland. Stability to the Scottish budget will continue to be provided by continuing block grant from the United Kingdom Government.

Delivering the Donald Dewar lecture in 2003, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said:

“No self respecting Parliament should expect to exist permanently on 100% handouts determined by another Parliament, nor should it be responsible for massive public expenditure without any responsibility for raising revenue in a manner accountable to the electorate”.

I believe that this Bill addresses that critique. The Calman commission also concluded that the original divide, as I have indicated, between devolved and reserved policy powers was broadly right. The Bill therefore does not seek radically to alter the boundary but instead updates the balance between reserved and devolved powers in specific areas, as recommended by the commission. We are devolving the power to set the national speed limit and the drink drive limit, to regulate air weapons. Recognising that this is a two-way street, where a consistent approach across the United Kingdom is required, we will legislate at a United Kingdom level, specifically over the winding up of companies and the regulation of healthcare professionals, as provided for by the Bill.

The functioning of the Scottish Parliament itself will be improved by measures in this Bill. The Parliament will be able to elect additional deputy presiding officers, it will have greater discretion to set its own Members’ interests regime, and there will be greater flexibility about the makeup of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Closer working relationships between UK and Scottish Ministers will be required. Scottish Ministers have a role in the appointment of a Scottish member of the BBC Trust, and a Scottish Crown Estate commissioner.

The Bill also provides for some largely technical and relatively uncontroversial updates to improve the Scotland Act and help devolution to operate more effectively. Improving devolution for Scotland is an ongoing process, and while constitutional legislation is rare, the Scotland Bill provides an opportunity to make some amendments. In my role as Advocate-General, I am responsible for providing advice on Scots legal issues to the United Kingdom Government, and I therefore thought it right to take the opportunity to review the existing Scotland Act. There are a number of technical measures in the Bill.

I also took the opportunity to revisit an area of the Scotland Act which was raised with the Calman commission by the judiciary, but on which the commission made no recommendation. I established an expert group under Sir David Edward to consider the way in which acts or failures to act of the Lord Advocate that are incompatible with Community law and convention rights are dealt with. Clause 17 of the Bill implements the findings of that expert group and simplifies process, with human rights and European Union law issues being referred to the Supreme Court.

The Bill represents a large and historic change for Scotland, and therefore deserves proper scrutiny, which I am sure this House will give it. Alongside the scrutiny it received in the other place, the Scottish Parliament has examined and debated the Bill, and the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster provided a rigorous analysis of the Bill’s provisions.

Your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee has noted that the Bill is of clear constitutional significance, but also said that there were no issues of constitutional concern in the Bill. I noted that the Committee welcomed the extensive deliberation which preceded introduction of the Bill. Those of us who are veterans of the PVSC Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will be very pleased with that particular commendation from the Constitution Committee. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also noted no issues in the Bill.

The Government welcome all these reports, and thank those who have worked to consider this Bill. While the Calman commission’s balance and evidence process is the basis for the Bill, the Government have made it clear that we have never ruled out sensible and similarly evidenced suggestions for change. We have listened to recommendations made by the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, and to advice from other stakeholders, and while we believe that the Scotland Bill package provides the right balance of powers for tomorrow’s Scottish Parliament, we nevertheless have made some amendments to the Bill, and the supporting non-legislative package.

These will give Scottish Ministers greater flexibility to exercise their new powers effectively; for example, by bringing forward to 2011 pre-payments—a form of cash advance to allow work on the Forth replacement crossing to begin. The Government have listened to other recommendations and tweaked the finance and non-finance aspects of the Bill and its accompanying package.

We continue to believe that the package set out in this Bill and the associated Command Paper will strengthen Scottish Devolution and Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. It provides strong financial accountability to the Scottish Parliament, and the right balance of additional powers. It provides the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament with new tools to deliver policies in Scotland to respond to new challenges.

The other place debated the Bill over three days in Committee on the Floor of the House. Committee days in this House subject to the Motion later, will take place as a Committee of the Whole House. It is right that legislation of such constitutional significance gains the level of scrutiny it deserves, and that no one is excluded from the process. The whole essence of the Bill has been about inclusion. All parties were invited to be involved in the Calman process, just as they were in the Constitutional Convention. Those parties and those people who accepted the offer have therefore had the biggest hand in shaping these, and therefore the future of devolution.

There is, of course, a relationship with another place, a place much affected by the provisions of this Bill, and that is the Scottish Parliament. As I have indicated, the previous Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly approved the Bill, with 121 MSPs voting for the legislative consent measure in support, three voting against, and one abstaining. The three main UK-wide parties, together with the party which currently forms the Scottish Government, voted in support of the Bill. I think we can say that the Scottish Parliament believes in the Scotland Bill.

A new Parliament with a new focus was elected on 5 May, and as we are all well aware, it represented a landmark change in Scottish politics. This new Scottish Parliament will consider the Bill again, and we will consider sensible recommendations for the Bill made in time for this House’s final amending stage. We will get the chance to consider any recommendations which come from the Scottish Parliament, and the Government will continue to work with the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee, which is considering amendments to the Bill. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will give evidence to the Committee on Thursday of this week.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is with us today, has given his name to a convention that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters on Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. This convention has been developed and embodies the respect that this Parliament has for the Scottish Parliament. In keeping with the spirit of the convention, the Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Parliament Committee reviewing the Bill, and we will look to maintain the support of the Scottish Parliament for the Bill.

As is well known, the Scottish Government have expressed their desire to see additions made. We will look at these further proposals and set them against three tests: that the Scottish Government provides detailed proposals to strengthen the Bill; that the proposals maintain the cross-party consensus that has been worked up and developed; and that any such proposals are beneficial to Scotland, without being prejudicial to the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole. I will of course keep the House appropriately informed of any developments in discussions with the Scottish Government, which will operate under a banner of mutual respect.

I have no doubt that in the course of the next few hours, many noble Lords will wish to debate not only the detailed provisions of the Bill, but also wider constitutional issues of importance to which this Bill is related. Of course, as I have indicated, the political landscape has changed since the Bill was introduced into the other place. Most obviously, the Scottish Government have claimed their election success as a mandate for a referendum on independence.

The Scottish Government have still got a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their main objective of separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. They do not want to provide any detail on how or when they will conduct a referendum. Nor do they want to explain in any greater detail, to date, what they mean by independence. The people of Scotland deserve to be told, and we will keep pressure on them to provide the facts to the people of Scotland. The Government, along with other noble Lords, believe that Scotland’s future is a future within the United Kingdom.

The Scotland Bill is a vehicle for upgrading Scotland’s devolution settlement. It is a Bill founded on evidence. It is a Bill with a clear purpose and clear principles: to strengthen devolution within the United Kingdom and to make the Scottish Parliament financially accountable. It fixes some things that have not quite worked; it makes the Parliament and the Government of Scotland more responsible for money they raise; and it allows the Scottish Parliament itself to run more effectively. Crucially, it will leave the Scottish Parliament with more powers than it had before; mature powers for a maturing Parliament.

The package strengthens the United Kingdom, by providing a settlement with financial responsibility, but it maintains the key elements of risk and benefit sharing that help the United Kingdom as a whole to perform effectively on the world stage and deliver fairly for all people. Stronger devolution which works for Scotland works for the United Kingdom, and I believe strengthens the United Kingdom for years to come. I commend this Bill to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I very much agree with what he said about the intemperate nature of the attacks that were made on the judges by the First Minister of Scotland. All I can say is that when I was Secretary of State, I made the odd intemperate attack—on the noble and learned Lord, actually—but had I done what the First Minister did, I am sure I would have been sacked the next day. I hope that lessons have been learnt from that.

I hope I shall not damage the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, by saying that his speech was absolutely excellent and that I agreed with many of his points. I shall come to that. However, because of the ridiculous position in which we find ourselves, I shall concentrate, for reasons of time, on Part 3 of the Bill, which is concerned with taxation. My noble and learned friend has said that this will bring accountability to the Scottish Parliament.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, is not here. I have great affection for the debates that we had about devolution. I was opposed to it; he was in favour. He told me that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. I have to say that the Bill looks curiously out of time. The world has moved on. We all know what the genesis of the Calman commission was. Wendy Alexander quite sensibly suggested that we should cut the Gordian knot and have a referendum on independence once and for all—that we should take the nationalists at their word. Unfortunately, she was not supported by the Prime Minister, so the three unionist parties got together and set up Calman in the hope that it would halt the nationalist bandwagon. That has not quite worked out. We now have a nationalist Administration without, it seems, any check or balance on it. The architecture of the electoral system under the Scotland Act, which was to prevent any party gaining dominance, has failed. We now have a nationalist Administration determined to use all the resources of the Scottish Office to break up the United Kingdom and pretending that it is in favour of an immediate referendum.

When my noble and learned friend says that the income tax powers will bring accountability, I very much doubt it. I give noble Lords a tale of woe as an example: the poll tax. We introduced the poll tax; it did not work out terribly well for us. The argument was that it would bring accountability to local government. The problem was that the proportion of the revenue that was raised, as with the rating system, was small. Therefore, to get a relatively small increase in resources there had to be a huge increase in the level of poll tax. That was the fundamental flaw. The idea of accountability is the same as the case that the Minister makes for income tax. I noticed that in his speech he said that a penny on income tax would raise £450 million.

Let us be clear about this: we are not talking here about the 3p variable rate on the basic rate of income tax. The Bill abolishes that, even though it was agreed by the Scottish people in a referendum, as I indicated earlier. We are talking about introducing, for the first time, a Scottish income tax that will apply at the basic, intermediate and top levels. The Minister said that £450 million was 1.7 per cent of the Scottish Budget. On my calculations, if we take £450 million as the product of that, a 5p increase in the Scottish income tax rate would give you an 8.5 per cent increase in the Budget, so to get 8.5 per cent more money you would have to increase the basic rate of income tax by a quarter.

The stoppages in most people’s pay packets would go up by a quarter in order to increase the Budget by less than 10 per cent. That is disastrous in an environment that has changed, where there is a huge deficit and where the Scottish Parliament was given a year off by the Chancellor and it did not make the necessary deficit reductions. To bring this measure in now seems extraordinary because the income tax proposals suffer from the same gearing problems that applied to the poll tax, the rating system and now to the council tax.

Here, the Government and those who support these proposals have a problem. On the council tax, I think our policy is to freeze it. On the one hand we argue that the Scottish Parliament must have the right to put up taxes in order to have accountability, but in local government this does not apply. We have a new policy that where the council tax is to be increased by more than the rate of inflation, there has to be a referendum of the local people to approve it. I ask my noble and learned friend why that does not apply to the local income tax. Why is there not going to be a referendum first of all on the principle of having this? My noble and learned friend says that there is a consensus in Scotland and that everyone agrees with this. I wager that if you stop three people in the streets of Edinburgh and tell them that a Bill is going through Parliament that could put their income tax up by a quarter in order to increase expenditure by less than 10 per cent—or, in this case, maintain expenditure—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

First, I point out to my noble friend that it was in the manifestos of three parties at the last UK general election and endorsed. It is not intended that these powers will be made available next year in the midst of a recession. My noble friend must remember that the power to put tax up is also the power to bring tax down. Therefore, the question he is putting to the three people in Edinburgh is wrong on so many points.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend has been here too long if he thinks that the electorate reads the manifestos of the political parties and bases its votes on that. As for the point that the power could be used to bring tax down, the Government are asking the Scottish Parliament to find deficit reduction expenditure of about £3 billion. On my calculations based on his figures, that would amount to a 7p increase in the rate of tax just on deficit reduction. While we are on the subject of Calman, my noble and learned friend says that it is not being implemented now, so that is all right because it will be not in his term of office but in 2016; someone else will have to explain the consequences of this policy.

My noble and learned friend says that the deficit will have been dealt with by then. He cannot have it both ways. He has told us that there is a great consensus for Calman. Calman says that we should move to a needs-based system of funding for the Scottish Budget. Furthermore, from the work of Professor Bell and others we know that that would result now in a reduction of £4.5 billion in the Scottish Budget, which is a lot to find in income tax. That is the Government’s policy for the longer term, so we are going to have to have a higher rate of income tax in order to stay exactly where we are. I do not think that this has been thought through.

There are very few things that I agree on with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, but when he says that you cannot run an economy on a narrow tax base like income tax and that you need to have wider tax powers, he is correct. I am against having wider tax powers for the reasons that I will give shortly. I say to my noble and learned friend—and I will table some amendments in Committee—that he should consider whether it might not be right to have a referendum before these proposals on income tax can be implemented and, certainly in line with our policy on local government, to have a referendum if the Scottish Parliament chooses to set a rate of income tax that is higher than it is for the rest of the United Kingdom.

There is another aspect of taxation in this Bill that absolutely terrifies me; it gives the Scottish Parliament the power to invent new taxes altogether with no reference to anyone—not to the voters or to anything else. My noble and learned friend is shaking his head. Am I wrong about that? If they decide to introduce a local income tax, which is their declared policy, as I thought on these Benches—I am not sure what the coalition Government’s position is on local income tax, but the Conservative Party has always been opposed to local income tax because we would have all the problems that we have just been hearing—we could be faced not only with having the highest rate of income tax in the United Kingdom but with having a local income tax on top of that. I see that my noble and learned friend is reading the Bill. I hope he realises that the Bill actually provides for the creation of new taxes. It specifies particular taxes in respect of land and landfill.

On top of all that, we have powers of borrowing, which are described as positive—and here I did disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson. I think that the Scottish Government must be the only Government legislating on the planet that thinks that now, with a huge financial crisis and huge economic problems, is the moment to have higher taxes and higher borrowing. That is what this Bill provides for. When my noble and learned friend says that the powers might be used to cut taxes and cut borrowing, what planet is he living on? I do not know a single serious politician looking at the Scottish Budget, at the problems and at all these goodies that the nationalists have provided—such as free prescriptions, free healthcare and free transport, all of which are desirable but none of which are affordable—who could believe that the result of these powers would not be that Scotland would become the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. As the noble and learned Lord said, at the moment Scotland is suffering the worst rate of growth and the biggest threat to employment in the public sector because of the size of the public sector. It just seems plain daft to do this.

Having dealt with taxation, I turn to the issue of referenda. I see that the Bill has sections on elections, on presiding officers, on deputies, on the Supreme Court, on Members’ interests and even on Antarctica. I am delighted to see that Antarctica is not going to be in the province of the Scottish Parliament, having spent my Christmas there. Every corner of the world is covered except vires on referenda, which is the central issue in politics today in Scotland.

Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to clarify the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson? It is perfectly clear to me, from reading the previous Scotland Bill, and as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to run a binding referendum on the issue of independence for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament now has a majority of Members who are committed to doing so. We know that there is going to be a referendum. How can it be in anyone’s interests not to ensure that that referendum is held on a proper basis with a proper campaign and with proper notice? Why on earth are the Government dealing with every other issue, including the name of the Government, but not dealing with the central issue, in my view, and providing the machinery for a referendum on independence? Of course, I am a bit of an extremist on some of these subjects, so I would prefer the Bill to say that the referendum is to be in October next year, because I think that it is deeply damaging to have this uncertainty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is a highly hypothetical question. The Scottish Parliament has already approved the proposals by 121 votes to three. It remains to be seen what the committee of the new Parliament will do with any amendments, but the Scottish Parliament has already approved the proposals.

With regard to the specific powers on the boundary between devolved and reserved matters, I know that there has been comment that the Bill does not contain a substantial number of powers. As I said earlier, that is probably a reflection of the fact that the balance struck and judgments made in the initial Scotland Act were basically right, but we should not belittle or minimise the changes being made. They have been well thought through. In the case of Antarctica, there was clearly an oversight, but that is not an academic argument—well, in some respects it is an academic argument because if anyone wishes to undertake research in Antarctica, they require a permit or licence, and I am sure that Scottish academic institutions will wish to do so. It is only right that we ensure that the proper regime is in place for them to do so with certainty.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury asked about air weapons. The question here is not so much about the devolution of the power; some of his points reflected the fact that the Calman commission did not go beyond air weapons because the advantage of having a common system for other firearms throughout Great Britain was well understood. Many of the issues he raised are not so much about the devolution of the power but how the power might be used by the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, we will come back to that in Committee, and I look forward to looking at that in greater detail.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested that we should not get too excited about a change to drink-driving. He might want to note the evidence provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament. It stated that ACPOS welcomes the proposals contained in the Bill relating to drink-drive limits, which it would consider a step towards helping save lives and preventing serious injury on Scotland's roads. That is not a trivial matter at all. It is an important point. If, by exercising the power, the Scottish Parliament is able to pass legislation that would have that positive effect, then we welcome it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is that not rather anticipating that the Scottish Parliament would choose to reduce the level rather than to increase it? Is that not a gross assumption?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The indications that have been given to us by those pressing the case for the change are that, to address the serious problems of alcohol misuse in Scotland, it was more likely that the level would be reduced rather than increased. I take the point that that could be a presumption but it is one that is fairly well based.

The noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, all mentioned Clause 17 and the role of the Lord Advocate. Whatever differences there might be in terms of the detail of that particular clause, there was a general agreement that issues relating to convention rights and European Union law should ultimately be litigated in the Supreme Court. That is certainly the conclusion of the expert group, which was set up under Sir David Edward’s chairmanship. Clearly, there will be an opportunity to go into the detail of how that will work in Committee.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, also raised the important point about whether the roles of the Lord Advocate should be split. As was said, this issue has been around for some time. I was rather surprised for it to be raised from the Front Bench at this stage of the proceedings. No doubt, we will again have an opportunity to debate that. As I indicated, the position of the Secretary of State—and the Government—is that, if novel proposals are to come forward at this stage, the tests are that they should be very detailed in their presentation, command a consensus and not only be for the benefit of Scotland but not prejudice other parts of the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked what other powers there might be. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the issues that the Scottish Government have raised. Again, those tests will apply. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Scottish Government but we await with some interest more detailed proposals. We are still awaiting any submission from them on excise duty. I certainly found the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie very persuasive in the context of the Calman commission, which did not recommend any devolution of excise duties. The tests that I have already outlined will apply to any of these proposals coming forward from the Scottish Parliament, including for example on corporation tax.

In the Government’s mind, the only other taxes which could be devolved are the two which were recommended by Calman but are not in the Bill: aggregates tax, which we did not proceed with because of litigation that is currently in place, and air passenger duty—on the basis that the whole question of aviation taxation was being looked at. Did it make sense to devolve something which was under a much wider consideration?

The noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Wigley, asked about the position in Wales. It was announced back in July that an independent commission will be established in the autumn to look at the financial accountability of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. It will examine the issues of fiscal devolution and accountability, and take into consideration the work of the Holtham commission, mentioned by a number of contributors including my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. The Government are currently discussing the terms of reference and the commission members with the Welsh Government.

Important points were made by my noble friends Lady Linklater of Butterstone and Lord Lindsay about the recommendations within the Calman commission relating to non-legislative but important matters regarding links between parliaments and governments in Scotland and at Westminster. I can assure your Lordships that we take this matter seriously. Since the Government came to office in May 2010, we have committed ourselves to upholding an agenda of mutual respect and engagement with all the devolved Administrations.

We have successfully resolved some disputes under the new dispute resolution procedure that had been put in place by the previous Government: there have been two joint ministerial committees in plenary session since May 2010; the joint ministerial committee on Europe continues to meet regularly; the joint ministerial committee (domestic) has met twice; and, consistent with the Calman commission recommendations, we have issued communiqués after plenary meetings and made an annual report on the work of the JMC. I will be happy to give further information to my noble friends, but one other thing which I remember the Calman commission was keen on was attendance of Ministers at respective parliaments. We support the attendance of Ministers before committees of the Scottish Parliament. I think I am right in saying that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has given evidence; I certainly gave evidence, along with the Secretary of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to the previous Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament, and I intend to do so again with regard to the new committee.

The electoral system was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. When the Calman commission looked at this, it noted that the Arbuthnott committee said it should be looked at again after the 2011 elections. Therefore, we did not think it appropriate as Calman commissioners to make a recommendation on that. There is an acceptance, following the Arbuthnott committee report and the Calman commission report, that some form of review of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament is required. The matter is under consideration, and the Government will confirm our intentions at a later stage.

It is clear that the key provisions in this Bill relate to finance. I rather thought when I heard my noble friend Lord Forsyth mounting his arguments against the tax-varying powers, as usual with great gusto, that they were very similar to the arguments we had in 1997 against tax-varying powers, so I will not rehearse all of these now. What the commission was faced with was trying to get a proper balance between the efficiency of the tax system and proper accountability. At the core, a number of noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have pointed out the importance of trying to ensure that there is a link between spending money and raising money. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who talked not only about “no taxation without representation” but also about “no representation without taxation”. That link is very important.

What we did within the Calman commission, and which the Government accept, was to look at different international systems. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who compared income tax to the poll tax. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, the thing about the poll tax was that it had no link to income at all, which was one of its problems and its criticisms. Income tax, however, we were advised, was one of the taxes, perhaps more than any other, which actually impacted not only in reality but in perception upon individuals. We thought that in terms of identifying a tax which was most likely to accentuate accountability, income tax was the appropriate tax.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked, “Why the 10p?”. Clearly we are trying to achieve a balance between the Scottish Parliament having responsibility, while recognising that Scottish taxpayers contribute to the United Kingdom as well to a whole range of services which are provided at a United Kingdom level.

The question of the Scottish taxpayer was put very graphically by my noble friend Lord Lyell, with tributes to Andy Stewart. There is a different test from that which applied to the Scottish variable rate, and indeed Clause 32 of this Bill, for such time as the Scottish variable rate will continue, is brought into line with what is proposed in future.

For most people, determining whether or not they are a Scottish taxpayer will be a straightforward matter: it will be whether their sole or main place of residence is in Scotland. If it is in Scotland, they will be Scottish taxpayers. It is not an unusual thing to use a sole or main place of residence for capital gains tax purposes. I think it is also used for when we have to register as Members of this House as to where our transport links will be. So it is not a novel concept. One of those individuals who are UK resident but do not have a close connection with any part of the United Kingdom will need to establish the number of days they have spent in Scotland. Again, I suspect that this is a matter that we will look at in great detail in Committee.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I know that the hour is late but that is not what the Bill says, unless I have misread it. It says that if you have more than one residence you count the number of days that you have spent in those residences.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that my noble friend has that right. The principal point will be whether it is your sole or main residence. As I have just indicated, it is only if you are an individual who does not have a close connection with any part of the United Kingdom that the number of days spent in Scotland will be relevant. We can clearly debate that, as we no doubt will, in greater detail when we come to Committee, but I seek to reassure my noble friend on that. He also said that the SNP would take the power to have new taxes and would implement them willy-nilly. However, the provisions in the Bill make it very clear that the power to have any new taxes will have to be passed not only by the Scottish Government but by both Houses of this Parliament. An order would not be brought forward to this Parliament unless it had the agreement of the UK Government. Therefore, there would have to be negotiation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government before such an order could be brought forward, and it would be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, wished the borrowing powers to be accelerated. My noble friend Lord Younger put his finger on the matter: there is a pragmatic reason for delaying such powers in the context of the current spending review period. The borrowing of the Scottish Parliament would be aggregated with UK borrowing and, given that the borrowing limits have been clearly identified in the current spending review period, we do not think it right to move at this stage to extend the borrowing powers to the Scottish Parliament before 2015. The exception to that—it is perhaps not a proper exception although it is an important point—is that, in response to representations from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, we have made prepayments, or a sort of cash advance, in terms of the money required to do the preliminary work for the building of the new Forth road crossing. That has been widely welcomed and it is a pragmatic response to the situation.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, asked about the administrative burden and cost of income tax powers. Employers and software providers have already made changes to payroll software so that they can operate the existing Scottish variable rate of income tax. Therefore, the existing payroll software provides for a different rate to operate. Additional compliance costs and burdens may arise if the Scottish Government seek to adapt the existing process—for example, to introduce a greater degree of transparency—by requiring the Scottish rate to be separately identified on payslips and P60s. Further costs and burdens could also arise in relation to the treatment of certain tax reliefs.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about the working group. There is a high-level implementation group, which involves a number of bodies and organisations with an interest in the detailed implementation of the tax reliefs. It has already met three times and is due to meet again in the autumn. There is also a joint Exchequer group involving Ministers in the Scottish Government, the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. The group will look at the negotiation of the detailed implementation of these plans. I think that it is due to meet again shortly in the autumn. In addition, separate groups have been looking at issues such as tax on charitable giving and other such detailed issues. These groups have already met, and I assure the House and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that those meetings will continue.

Finally on finance, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked about the workings of the Scottish rate. He asked, as with chicken or egg, which would come first—the reduction or the block grant. Unlike the Scottish variable rate, the Scottish rate of income tax will require an annual decision from the Scottish Parliament. The proportionate amount will be deducted from the block grant and, if the Scottish Parliament does not set a rate, it will not get the money. It will be obliged to set the rate and to do so in good time before the start of the tax year—again, giving proper notice in terms of collection and to businesses which will have to administer the system.

Related to that, the question of bond issuing was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. Although the Bill makes provision for that to be implemented—not by having further recourse to primary legislation but by secondary legislation—it will be dependent on the outcome of a consultation, which is either under way or is about to get under way, regarding the merits of going down that road, taking into account some of the points which the noble Baroness raised.

Linked to this is the question of the Barnett formula, raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Maclennan, Lord Forsyth, Lord Caithness and Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. Under the proposals in the Bill, as I have indicated, the Scottish rate of income tax will be reduced by 10p. It will then be for the Scottish Government to decide to levy in Scotland. I am sure a number of noble Lords will wish to debate this further. The Government have made clear in the coalition agreement that we recognise the concerns about devolution funding, but the priority has to be to reduce the deficit and to stabilise the public finances.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that something should be in the Bill about the formula. The position is that the Scotland Act contains nothing about it and that the Bill, if implemented, is neutral about its future. There will be a block grant but the formula to determine it can be done externally to the provisions in the Bill. We have been duly warned by at least one if not two noble Lords that we will have amendments on this. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others are liable to bring forward amendments on the question of a referendum. A number of noble Lords have pressed a case for the United Kingdom Government holding a referendum on independence. Their argument is that it is in Scotland’s interests to end the constant constitutional uncertainty and that a clear-cut question will produce a clear-cut endorsement of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

I understand the motivation of those who have argued that case. Many, including the Government, would like nothing more than to see an end to the manoeuvring of separation, which for so long has distracted Scotland from the many other opportunities and challenges on which we might more fruitfully and productively focus. As this debate broadens out beyond this Chamber to the political classes, more questions will be put to the SNP Government, as we saw last week, with important speeches by representatives of the CBI. The dangers of continued uncertainty will become more obvious to people across Scotland if the SNP—“rather coy”, was how the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, described it— carries on ducking questions. It will need to be clear about its plans and its timings.

Perhaps it is too ambitious to hope that tomorrow, when he announces his programme for government, the First Minister will start to say something about that. As noble Lords have indicated, there are crucial questions about the euro or the pound, and about whether it would be the European Central Bank or the Bank of England that would have responsibility. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury raised these questions last week. We will continue to press the Scottish Government on these issues. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, about the importance of all us waking up to the challenges and positively making the case for the United Kingdom, and for Scotland being part of that.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Prime Ministers have tried to divine the times to see when would be the best time to call an election. Indeed, in an earlier debate I quoted from the book of my noble friend Lord Lawson, The View from No. 11: Memoirs of a Tory Radical. He said about the then Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher:

“Her view was that a Government should always wait until the final year of the quinquennium, but once there should go as soon as it is confident it will win”.

In other words, a partisan political judgment was clearly being made. As my noble friend reminded us, in September/October 2007, Mr Gordon Brown did a calculation in the third year of that Parliament as to whether or not it would be in his party’s best interests to go to the country. There is more to this. The power that the Prime Minister is giving up as a result of this Bill, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, at Second Reading, is important.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that it was not much of a power, and then he said that no Prime Minister would have a straight face in trying to reverse the situation in the future. He is absolutely right. If a fixed-term Parliament became law, it would be very difficult for someone to come before the House and say that they wanted to revert to the position where the Prime Minister could choose the date of the election because of party advantage. They would get pretty short shrift—it would be difficult to do—but no one denies that, constitutionally, it is perfectly possible. It would be perfectly proper for them to seek to do it and to argue their case. However, my point is that they should do it by proper means through primary legislation and not in the way proposed by the amendment to the Motion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Why does my noble and learned friend use the phrase “because of party advantage”? What happens if a Prime Minister thinks it is the country’s advantage—as happened in 1974 when the Prime Minister felt that the issue of the power of the unions needed to be settled? Why take that away? Secondly, I struggled with the speech of my noble friend Lady Stowell when she said that having a fixed-term parliament would restore people’s trust in Parliament. How does giving people absolute job security for five years help to restore people’s trust? Can my noble and learned friend explain that to me?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the answer is the same to both parts of my noble friend’s question. On the position in February 1974, which has been raised in the debate, if the Conservative Prime Minister of the day believed that it was necessary for an election, it is beggaring belief to suggest that the Labour Party would not also have agreed to an election and that the 75 per cent majority for a dissolution would not have been achieved. This does not mean absolute job security for five years because, if a Government lose confidence, the Bill contains within it mechanisms which can lead to an election. This can also happen if there is an agreement—as I believe would have been the case in March 1979. The then Prime Minister, Mr James Callaghan, could have said that he had lost a vote of confidence and that the following day he would table a Motion for dissolution, which I am sure would have been overwhelmingly carried by more than the majority required under the Bill. To suggest that he would have had to go scrabbling around trying to find a means of living on until October would not have been the case. There are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with that kind of situation.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, sought to dismiss the suggestion that there could not be tensions between the two Chambers, although I do not think that he actually denied that that was a possibility. However, he did say that this House would not stand in the way of a newly elected Government who sought to establish a fixed-term Parliament. Part of the problem with the noble Lord’s answer, apart from suggesting that this House might simply rubber-stamp the Bill—heaven forbid—is that the amendment does not say that the resolution would be brought forward by a newly elected Government. It actually says that it would have to be brought forward at some time during the Parliament. Therefore it might be brought forward some years into the Parliament. At that point, who is to say that this House might not think that they were at it at the other end, bringing forward the resolution for partisan advantage? This House might take a different view about that in those circumstances. Therefore it does change the balance.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked whether this does not parallel the position in the Parliament Act when Parliament was extending the lifetime of a Parliament. The point is that the exception in Section 2 of the 1911 Act is to,

“a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years”.

There is a crucial difference between a Bill that extends a Parliament beyond five years and a resolution as to whether there should be a fixed-term Parliament. In that respect, it is not proper that this House should be given a veto in these circumstances.

I have already indicated that this course can be revived in each succeeding Parliament. It is not just a case of seeing how the Parliament from 2010 to 2015 would go. It may not happen under the amendment here—there may not be a fixed-term from 2015 to whenever—but it could be revived in the following Parliament. It is another unsettling uncertainty about this Bill that it can switch on and off fundamentally important constitutional proceedings.

There has been considerable debate on this Bill. As I indicated, it was introduced a year ago this week. It had its Second Reading in another place in September last year, extra time was made available in Committee, and Report and Third Reading in the other place took place in January. In your Lordships’ House, the Bill was introduced in January, Second Reading took place in March, the Committee sat on three days in March, Report was heard on two days in May and Third Reading also took place in May. It has been very fully debated. I note that the noble Baroness, the chair of the Constitution Committee, referred to the committee’s report on the process of constitutional change, which I believe was published overnight. One of the conclusions was as follows:

“We stress the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of all bills”—

and this Bill has been subject to considerable parliamentary scrutiny for a Bill of only seven clauses and one schedule—

“but we do not recommend that any new parliamentary procedures such as super-majorities should apply to significant constitutional bills”.

I cannot think of any more noted significant new parliamentary procedure than the one that is promoted by this amendment. If the Constitution Committee is sceptical about using new parliamentary procedures with regard to even very sensitive and important constitutional Bills, this is one about which we certainly should be very sceptical. I do not believe the view of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that we are doing a service to the constitution by saying that we do not have to go to the length of repealing. Repealing is what we do if we do not like legislation that was passed by previous Parliaments. If we depart from that principle on a matter of constitutional importance, I believe we should only do so with very great caution. I would urge your Lordships not to insist on the amendment because I do not believe that the case has been made for such a serious constitutional departure.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is not necessarily paranoia if you think that someone is putting forward such an argument, but I will leave it to noble Lords to judge whether they could hear the noble and learned Lord making a similar argument.

I accept that the issue links into the debates we have had, and will have later, on whether we could find more objective criteria for determining what constitutes a vote of no confidence. I was not quite sure whether the argument made by my noble friend Lord Norton was that, as things stand at the moment, the Speaker has a greater need to consult in the absence of such a definition than in the context of a money Bill. Even looking at the provisions in the 1911 Act as to what constitutes a money Bill, it may be a statutory definition but it is not transparent, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, who had to deal with these things, will recognise.

I would not wish to try to persuade the House—nor is it the case—that this is the most important provision in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is very similar to a provision that has existed on the statute book and has been in force for 100 years. It is a tried and tested procedure. That also applies to the requirement to consult “so far as practicable”. Clearly, if someone was ill or abroad, that might not necessarily be practicable. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was right to say that the requirement is for consultation, not to seek agreement. As I have said, they are tried and tested measures, which we thought were appropriate in a context where important constitutional consequences would flow from a decision.

On freedom of information, obviously one issue would be what form the consultation took. If the consultation was verbal, there would be nothing for a freedom of information request to latch on to. I would have to remind myself what the possible grounds of exemption are but, given that advice to Ministers can be a matter for exemption, perhaps that would also apply to advice given to a Speaker. However, without looking in detail at the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, I cannot answer that question directly, although I can say that, if the consultation was not written down, I am not quite sure what would be caught. The noble and learned Lord asked me to write to him on this and I will seek to do so.

Given that we are trying to embrace a tried-and- tested procedure, I would invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does my noble and learned friend not see the irony in arguing the case for this on the basis that it is a tried-and-tested procedure while turning upside down the whole tried-and-tested procedure of how we decide when we are going to have a general election?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I see the irony. I still think that it is right.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on this interesting amendment. I go back to the point raised earlier when comparisons were raised with the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has been mentioned in defence of the Bill, but it seems to me that the Scottish Parliament is a completely different institution. First, it is elected by PR and therefore its procedures are designed to deal with that situation, but it is not a body which votes means of supply. The House of Commons raises means of supply. An Executive who are no longer able to command the support of the House of Commons are no longer able to operate the Government of the country because they are no longer able to raise the taxes which are required. That is the fundamental constitutional issue here. When a Government no longer have the support of the House of Commons, they are no longer able to carry on and it is necessary to go back to the country to get the authority to vote means of supply. These comparisons with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are totally erroneous for that reason. Therefore, the idea that when the Executive no longer command the support of the House of Commons to levy taxes on the people you should have 14 days to do a deal so that you can restore that authority is deeply erroneous. The noble and learned Lord is right in what he says in proposing this amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the amendment as I found its purpose somewhat difficult to discern. He has indicated that it seeks to address the situation, perhaps immediately after an election, where no Government have been formed. My difficulty is that, if the amendment were included in the Bill, a situation such as we are discussing might arise later in a Parliament when a Government had been formed. The amendment states:

“An early general election will only be called at the end of a 14 day period following a vote of no confidence if no Government has been formed since the last general election”.

That could almost exclude an early general election being called if, the Government having been formed since the last general election, there was a vote of no confidence and no other Government were then formed. I suspect that is a technical consequence of the amendment that the noble and learned Lord did not intend. As I understand it—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was genuinely somewhat puzzled about what the point was. However, I understand that the noble and learned Lord is trying to address a certain situation. I can see the distinction between an incoming Government following an election who have never faced the House of Commons on a Queen’s Speech and one which may have done so and lost as they are a continuing Government. He may wish to consider whether a general election should immediately ensue if an incoming Government who are not a continuing Government lose a vote on their first Queen’s Speech. I give a hypothetical example. If a minority Conservative Government had been formed after May last year, they would have been the new Government. A Government would have been formed but they may not have carried the day on a Queen’s Speech. I rather suspect that the circumstances which the noble and learned Lord sought to address in his amendment might be similar to that example. I suggest that another election would not necessarily be triggered immediately by that scenario.

As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord is saying that there are circumstances where there is the possibility of another Government being established, as, indeed, happened in 1924. He thinks that the presumption would be in favour of an early election, triggered by a vote of no confidence. However, it is a rebuttable presumption. The noble and learned Lord is trying to identify the circumstances in which that presumption might be rebutted. One such circumstance could well be where we have an election, there is no overall majority and therefore there ought to be an opportunity, if the Government lose a vote on the Queen’s Speech, for another one to be formed. I understand what he is saying but the difficulty we have in these situations is with the general assumption that an election would take place. We need to make the position certain and not leave it completely vague and imprecise. It is one of the challenges which we have sought to address in the Bill. It may seem somewhat cumbersome at times with the Speaker’s certificate mechanism but the purpose behind that is to try to ensure that there is certainty and that if situations arise which will lead to an election it is not a question of wondering whether it will or will not take place. We need to establish that certain circumstances would trigger elections while others would not.

I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth that there are important distinctions to be made between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Parliament. I think that in an earlier intervention I indicated that you can only take the comparisons so far. If a Government have not commanded the support of the other place, have lost a vote of no confidence and no other Government have been formed who hold the confidence of the other place, an election would follow. If, however, a Government command the confidence of the other place, they would have the wherewithal to raise supply. It is very easy to look at these issues through the prism of a two-party political history, but as my noble friend Lord Newton said in one of our earlier debates, we cannot take it for granted that the simple two-party situation that has prevailed for so long will always do so. We have seen that the first past the post system could not be relied upon to produce a clear-cut majority Government in May last year. We may well find ourselves in those circumstances again. The circumstances which apply in the Scottish Parliament may well be more appropriate for a Parliament that does not regularly have Governments with an outright majority. However, I accept that there is an important distinction between a Parliament elected by proportional representation and one which is not. I do not even claim that AV is a proportional system but it is one which nevertheless could give rise to a Parliament in which no one party regularly has a majority.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend but my point, which I am delighted that he acknowledges, was that the Scottish Parliament is different because it does not vote means of supply. The argument has been advanced that these provisions are appropriate for the House of Commons. Indeed, it has been thrown back in the face of the Labour Party that it introduced these provisions for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament was deliberately designed in the electoral system as an institution in which no party would be able to get an overall majority, and my noble and learned friend played a part in that. Therefore, to import provisions relating to a Chamber which is completely different from the House of Commons and argue that they are appropriate is an error. That is the point I was making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for the amendment, which I think, by any account, has produced a very informed, worthwhile and important debate. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cormack expressed the hope that we would be able to look at privilege in Committee. Our minds have been very much focused by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and he has done a service to the Committee by tabling it. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, not least the two former distinguished Speakers of the other place, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, who bring to this debate many years of experience not only as Speakers but also as Deputy Speakers. They have between them many years of occupancy of the Chair, and any Government would be wise to have regard to what they have said. As I said in our earlier debate, this is a part of the Bill where I think that there is some common ground on what we are trying to achieve; that is, to ensure that we do not have fixed-term Parliaments that are absolutely fixed and, if there is to be some means of breaking out of a deadlock, to try to identify how best that is to be done. The comments that the former Speakers made, specifically with regard to the Speaker’s certificate, form part of the consideration that we want to give in trying to get it right.

A number of distinctive points arose out of the amendment and the debate. Perhaps I may be able to separate them out. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin, spoke about the Speaker being brought into political controversy and how that related to how motions of confidence were defined. There will be further opportunity to discuss that later in Committee when we come to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack. The comments that have been made will relate to that as well.

The substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, related to parliamentary privilege and the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated and was confirmed by other speakers, all of us would be in agreement in abhorring a position where the courts should be able to interfere with the certificate if that is what emerges from the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, sought to add the words which, as he rightly said, ring down through many centuries and which come from Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. That states that,

“proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

I think that it is widely agreed that that article is of great constitutional importance and a significant plank of what we describe as a doctrine of parliamentary privilege. One of the most important aspects of privilege is that it is for Parliament to judge the lawfulness of its own proceedings, not a court or other outside body. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that he wanted to reinforce that principle by inserting those words. I again confirm that the Government do not consider it appropriate for the courts or other outside bodies to scrutinise how the Speaker would exercise his or her functions under the Bill.

With specific regard to the words of the amendment, I echo some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Marks. We do not believe it necessary to include those words to achieve the aim, as the words have their own significant pedigree. They were based on the Parliament Act 1911, where Speaker’s certificates are equally conclusive for all purposes. It follows the language used in the House of Lords Act 1999, under which the certificate of the Clerk of the Parliaments is conclusive. The effect of those words in the Bill and those Acts is to make clear that parliamentary privilege applies to the matters being certified. Accordingly, we do not believe it necessary to make further provision along the lines suggested. As ever, making further provision may cast doubt on earlier enactments which do not include those words. I do not think that any of us want to go there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, asked what purpose was then served by having a conclusive certificate, when we claim that the matter is already one of privilege. Again, I confirm that it is true that the subject matter of a certificate relating so closely to proceedings in Parliament would mean that privilege alone would be sufficient to prevent the courts considering it. However, making a certificate conclusive reinforces that point and is intended to enhance that certainty.

I cannot accept the assertion made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the Government just brushed aside the position set out by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Clearly, when the Clerk of the Parliaments makes a submission such as that, it is given considerable care and attention. My noble friend Lord Marks pointed out that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House received considerable evidence on that from a number of people who have great standing as academics in constitutional law. Indeed, it referred in its report to,

“the weight of the evidence we received being against the view that a Speaker’s certificate would be justiciable … The risk that the courts may intervene in any early dissolution of Parliament by questioning the Speaker’s certificate is very small. Although the political and constitutional consequences of any such intervention would be very significant, we do not consider the risk to be sufficient to warrant a rejection of clause 2 of the Bill”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I accept my noble and learned friend's rebuke. I come from a tradition which thinks that the Clerk of the House is normally the person best qualified to advise on these matters. The way that the Minister dealt with that did not show the kind of respect that ought to be given. I hear what he says. Perhaps I am a bit daft and am missing something here, but could he explain why it is necessary to have the certification process at all?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is necessary because, as the Bill is constructed, there are trigger mechanisms to cause an election. There has to be certainty as to what causes that election so that it has legitimacy. One of them is to certify that two-thirds voted to trigger a Dissolution. In the context of votes of no confidence, if we seek to take power away from the Executive and the Prime Minister to determine what would be a vote of no confidence, it would be self-defeating then to say that the Prime Minister himself or herself could determine what is a vote of no confidence. Therefore, we give it to the person who is recognised as being independent to certify that there has been a vote of no confidence in the Government and that 14 days have elapsed. That is factual: that there has been a vote of no confidence and that 14 days have elapsed without any vote of confidence in a new Government having been passed.

There is a distinction between a certificate that certifies a fact—hopefully, that could not bring the Speaker into any kind of controversy—and the Speaker being asked to certify or indicate what he or she would consider to be a vote of no confidence. That brings us into the territory of earlier amendments, and those to be spoken to later by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I am being stupid, but if a motion in the House of Commons states, “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government”, and it is passed, why do we need a certificate to say that it has been passed? The 14-day provision is open for debate, but if the Bill says that Dissolution should happen 14 days after a motion has been passed, surely it is just a matter of counting the votes. Am I missing something?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I say again, it is not just that it is passed, it is that it is passed and that there has been no further vote of confidence in any Government. That is done for the purpose of ensuring legal certainty: that the election has legitimacy. It is quite straightforward why that is being done: that there is certainty. Otherwise, there will be a fixed-term Parliament where the law will say that the next election should be on whatever date and that to have an election not on that date, you have to be certain that the criteria laid down by law have been met. We take the view that a certificate from the Speaker makes certain beyond challenge that the criteria for having an election not on the date which would otherwise be the case have been met.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, indicated in moving Amendment 34, and as was confirmed by several speakers, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, its effect would be to trigger an early general election simply by a vote of no confidence in the Government. In other words, a simple majority in the House of Commons could lead to an immediate general election. This amendment places the power to decide whether and when there should be an early general election very much in the gift of the Executive.

I shook my head when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, seemed to suggest that this was some contrivance to keep together the coalition. First, I do not believe that to be the case, and, secondly, the Bill seeks a system of fixed-term Parliaments not just for this Parliament but into the future, when it may not be the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrat party in office. It might be the Labour Party that is in office, or a combination of parties. Therefore, I wholly reject this idea that it is intended to be some quick fix. The point has been debated on a number of occasions; and the party opposite fought the last election on the policy of fixed-term Parliaments, although one sometimes would be surprised by that.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said at Second Reading, there is a spectrum in terms of Parliaments: at one end you have complete flexibility, much as we have at the moment, as to when the Prime Minister can call an election; and at the other end you have complete rigidity. Many of the problems that have been raised would be resolved if you had complete rigidity and there were no safety valve, as I think the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House described it. I have not heard in any of our debates—either at Second Reading, in the other place or indeed in any of our Committee debates—anyone actually arguing for total rigidity. Therefore, there has to be a safety valve. In trying to devise these safety valves, we have produced one that reflects the two situations that could currently arise if there were a vote of no confidence. In addition to that, there is the safety valve of a Dissolution with a two-thirds majority. There was a view, certainly expressed around the time of the coalition agreement, that a vote of no confidence in the other place ought to have some consequence.

Perhaps I can just finish this point, which my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth raised: the problem with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is that a Dissolution would allow only for an immediate general election. However, the dual convention that exists is that after a vote of no confidence in the Government, the Prime Minister may resign and a new Administration may be formed, which happened in 1924 when the Baldwin Government were defeated and a Labour Government were then established, as was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Or, indeed, there could be a Dissolution, and we are saying that there would be a Dissolution if it were not possible to form another Government. We will come to the timing, but there ought at least to be some time to allow another Government to be formed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am intrigued by the analogy that the Minister uses in respect of requiring a larger majority than a simple one as a safety valve. Is that not a bit like taking a boiler, setting the pressure 30 per cent higher and saying that is making the thing safer? Surely, a safety valve implies a lower trigger, not a higher trigger.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was using the terminology used by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. It is not one I would necessarily disagree with, but what was meant by the safety valve—and the chair of that committee is here—was that, rather than be completely locked into a rigid fixed-term Parliament, with no way out if Parliament was unable to continue, there be mechanisms to trigger an election. One of them is where most sides agree that there should be an election and they constitute the two-thirds majority that would lead to an immediate Dissolution. The other mechanism by which an election would be called is where there has been a vote of no confidence in the Government and, within a period of 14 days, no other Government have been able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. It is fair to say—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Surely, given how the noble and learned Lord has explained it, the safety is being provided for the Executive in order to stay in office, which contradicts the whole thrust of this Government’s position that this Bill is about handing more power back to Parliament. The safety valve is being provided for the Executive.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, maybe “safety valve” leads to a misleading impression of what is meant. It is not a safety valve for the Executive; it is a safety valve for Parliament. If Parliament recognises that it is no longer able to function, there is one mechanism for finding a way out of that breakdown, and that is by calling an election. That is certainly not to the Executive’s advantage. Alternatively, where a Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and no other Government can be established, again, there is a mechanism for an election to be called. I do not believe that in any way helps the Executive.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for moving the amendment, as he said, on behalf of the coalition. He described the reasons for it. The Bill as it stood was defective, because, while the noble Lord specified that the referendum had to take place before 31 October, there was no means for identifying when the date had to be set—hence the need for an order.

The amendment also sets an appropriate test for Ministers to satisfy before using any order-making power, whereby,

“it is impossible or impractical for the referendum to be held on 5 May 2011, or that it cannot be conducted properly if held on that day”.

The test is right, because the referendum date can be moved away from 5 May only for practical reasons. It would be wrong, and have very serious implications, if the reason for that was the result of some delay that had not allowed consideration of the Bill to be completed in time.

The associated amendment to Clause 4 is also necessary in this context to ensure that the scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, envisages is properly workable. It provides a new power to make provision in secondary legislation to take account of a situation in which other polls are due to be held on any other referendum date set by the order.

Clause 4 as it stands will ensure that any poll which that clause already mentions is automatically combined with the referendum if it takes place on a new date set for the referendum. Any polls which Clause 4 does not mention would not be combined with the poll. It is impossible to say at this stage whether it would desirable to combine a referendum with other polls. A decision on that would need to be taken at the time and will depend on the types of polls.

In conclusion, I reassure noble Lords that, given the flexibility that these powers need to provide, any order made using the new powers will necessarily be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I end on a note of caution, because I cannot speak on this subject without saying how unfortunate it would be if the referendum were not to take place on 5 May.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the concern expressed north of the border about the coincidence of the referendum and the elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the difficulties that returning officers will have in ensuring that the count is available? The results may not be available on the Friday and be delayed. Will this be a problem, and have the Government any plans to avoid the difficulty whereby Members of the Scottish Parliament will not know for some time whether they have been elected and the position of the Administration in the Scottish Parliament, because of the difficulties of counting both polls at the same time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not wish to detain my noble friend. I understand what he said in Committee, namely that the counting of votes for the Scottish election will take priority. However, the issue is whether the process of validating the ballot papers will result in the election result being delayed. I have no idea what the results of the election will be, but it is conceivable that one political party will have a majority. It does not follow necessarily that there will be a period of the kind that my noble friend described. Given that the Government have decided to hold the referendum at the same time as the Scottish elections, they have an obligation to make sure that the result of the Scottish elections are delivered on time and are not disrupted.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I will add that they should also be delivered accurately. Therefore, this is a matter for the returning officers and counting officers, who are best placed to judge whether counting should start immediately or the following morning.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Perhaps the Royal Mail might find that useful for their coffers, but I am not sure whether that is going to happen. Perhaps I might draw it to the Committee’s attention that the Isle of Wight shares its police force with Hampshire and that, in other areas, the island is already making the most of its links with the mainland. On 28 October last, the Government approved a bid to create a Solent local enterprise partnership covering the economic area of south Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Indeed, one of the expectations for successful bids was whether the geography proposed represented a reasonable, natural and economic geography. I am confident that an MP would be able to represent a constituency that meets those criteria, such as in a cross-Solent seat. The island has indicated a willingness to develop its long-term interests, where appropriate, in conjunction with its mainland neighbours.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I find the point that my noble and learned friend has made about the police force curious. Orkney and Shetland share a police force with the mainland. What is the relevance of the police force?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was acutely aware of that. I was just indicating that there were links. I was almost immediately going to come on to the point that the distinction which we believe that there is between the Isle of Wight and the two named exceptions in the Bill is that they cannot readily be included physically in a constituency with the mainland, owing to their distance and to the dispersed nature of those constituencies, which we believe are distinctive. Indeed, as has been said—the Committee was reminded of this by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom—there is the principle in the Bill of equal votes and equal value. The Government recognise the strong views that have been expressed and believe that, at the end of the day, the principle which I have articulated would not be achieved by this amendment. I nevertheless want to say in conclusion—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed. I said that because I know for a fact that he does read these debates. I will certainly ensure that, before I have any meeting with my noble friend, my honourable friend, Mr Mark Harper, has read the terms of this debate and that would then inform the discussion that I am offering to have.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will put this very gently. What are we doing here? This is a Chamber of Parliament. We are debating legislation. My noble and learned friend speaks for the Government and says that a Minister in the other place reads our proceedings and will have a meeting. I am sorry, but that is treating this House with contempt. None of us wants to create a Division here, but the arguments have been put, this is Parliament, and surely the Minister’s duty is either to say “Your arguments are rubbish and we do not accept them”, or “I will go and talk to my colleagues to see if we can get collective agreement to meet them”. Simply to say “We will have a meeting” is not acceptable and not treating this House as a House of Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In response to my noble friend, this is a Committee stage, there will be a Report stage and there will be an opportunity—the opportunity I offered—for the outcome of the discussions that take place to be considered. The House will return to it and if my noble friend Lord Fowler is not satisfied with the outcome of that meeting, I have no doubt that he will be willing to table an amendment again.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In my experience, different Members of Parliament have different ways in which they think they should address their constituents’ problems and issues. It would be invidious to say that one was right and one was wrong, because different people can take a different approach. That may relate to the character and personality of the individual Member of Parliament, which may also determine what is right and what is wrong. At the end of the day, the constituents should decide.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is not the different behaviour of the Members of Parliament determined by the size of their majority? When I had a majority of 503, I would have written to everyone whose name appeared on a petition. If you have a safe seat, you take a different view. Generally speaking, I think that all Members of Parliament work for their constituents, but it does not half concentrate the mind when you have a small majority.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes a good point. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he honed his skills when answering every petition when he had a majority of about 400, although he said that he also did so when he had a majority of 18,000. That just shows that there are different approaches. I do not think that anyone has the answer for what is absolutely right and what is wrong, but a scientific inquiry would not find an answer either—other than possibly 650 different answers.