Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2023

Lord Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction. I have one or two questions. The order specifically focuses on low emission zones and integrated ticketing, including linking between railways and ferries, about which there is something of an issue in Scotland at the moment.

The reason why we require this is not entirely clear to me. What are the competition issues that require a UK agreement? I am not complaining about it; I want clarification. To put it the other way round: to what extent might there be a diversion within Scotland? Does that require UK Government consent or is it entirely a matter within the devolved responsibility?

To go to the specifics, low emission zones create some degree of controversy, not only in Scotland but elsewhere. I notice from looking at my local press that quite a few people are unhappy about them in Aberdeen and Glasgow. That is not a reason for not doing them; it is probably desirable to do so, but changes such as that mean that traffic going past certain businesses may change to their detriment. Do these issues have to be taken into account or are they just an unfortunate consequence?

On integrated ticketing, ScotRail and most of the ferries are wholly owned by the Scottish Government, although there are private operators, so what is the competition impact of that? Is it on other private operators —alternative forms of transport—which would seem valid to me? From looking at the various briefs, the established practice is clearly that each region and local authority in England has its own rules about this, and it seems that we are just applying the same rules in Scotland. Is that to have consistency across the piece so that, wherever they are in the UK, people can appreciate that the principles behind these will broadly be the same?

I concur with what the Minister said at the beginning. As a strong supporter of devolution—indeed, I would call myself a passionate home ruler—but not of separatism, it is good to see proper working between the two Governments; it is desirable. It would just be good if the Scottish Government could acknowledge that it happens a little more openly and be a bit more constructive about it, because to my mind that is how it should work.

Obviously, reassurance on TUPE—it is about workers’ rights, I guess, and is absolutely a UK matter—is welcome. I happen to be a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. We have been going through all these issues; indeed, the noble Lord opposite has also gone through that process, which has been slow and cumbersome and is a long way short of being complete. We are finding that there should not be difference for difference’s sake. It is good to have standard and agreed practices but divergence should also be allowed to apply. I want some assurance that, in passing this order, we are neither imposing conditions unnecessarily nor preventing diversion where it is necessary. On the basis that the Minister has said that it has been agreed between the two Governments, I assume that there are no outstanding issues of that sort.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks, which were lucid and forthright. Is it the case that the DVLA referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum is the DVLA at Morriston in Swansea? That is a huge, valued employer in Wales with a marvellous workforce. One does not want a Scottish competitor, if I may say so. It must be securely located in the Principality. Similarly, where is the Joint Air Quality Unit located? Is it a UK unit? Lastly—I want to be brief in this cool Moses Room—there is a reference in paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to a “Justice Impact Test”. Can the Minister elaborate on what that process is?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order; I think he said that it is the first order he has introduced so I welcome him to this process. Having been involved in the process of statutory instruments for a decade, there are various responses to being here with this massive attendance, which is not untypical.

This is a devolution order. I have so far managed to avoid any such orders, so I will tread with care. It seems to me that the general philosophy, if the two sides have agreed this, is that the preponderant input is from the Scottish Government and that this order merely enables and completes it. It then seems that the order has three areas. One covers low-emission zones; here, it is clear that this is what Scotland wants to do in terms of such zones. There is also a section on bus services, ticketing and so on and a section on pay conditions and pension protection. My first question is this: why now? It seems that the essence of the order is to make the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 work. That must have been sorted out three and a half years ago, so I am not clear on how it has worked in the meantime and why this was not done earlier.

The low-emission part is straightforward, as far as I can see, as is the employment part; they are perfectly sensible. The area where I had some trouble understanding was on the role of the CMA. The essence is in Article 21(1), on page 9 of the order, which says:

“A qualifying agreement to which this Chapter applies is exempt if— (a) it contributes to the attainment of one or more of the bus improvement objectives”.


That seems to be not exactly in conflict with but tested against paragraphs (1)(b) and (1)(c), which state that such an agreement is exempt if

“it does not impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of those objectives”—

I always love these double negatives—and

“it does not afford the undertakings concerned the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the services in question.”

Probation and Court Services: Workload

Lord Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I undertake to write to the noble Lord in relation to that study. I do not have information to hand on its progress but if I may pray the noble Lord’s patience, I will communicate with him in due course.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that any magistrate would tell him that the family court is central to the work of the Bench? Does he know that family courts in particular care about, help and consider the predicament of children from homes that are underprivileged, time and again? How many family courts are there? What does his department do to encourage and train those who make up the family court, and can he say how many magistrates’ courts his Government have closed in the last few years?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, once again I do not have the specific numerical answers to the noble Lord’s question, but I agree with everything that he said in his prefatory remarks about the importance of this field. I assure him that the Government are aware of that. Cafcass is an independent arm’s-length body which none the less works within the Civil Service funding structure. The Government have authorised uplifts over budget during the past two years to fund this work, the importance of which the noble Lord and I agree upon, and to lay some stress on the work that Cafcass carries out. With his indulgence, again, I will write to him in relation to the specific number questions that he poses.

Extradition: UK Law and Practice (Extradition Law Committee Report)

Lord Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baroness, who is in fine form. I very much agree with what our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said in his shrewd summation, so my remarks will be brief. I quote from an early page in the report:

“The suggestion for this inquiry came in a letter to the Liaison Committee from Baroness Garden of Frognal in which she said, ‘the question of extradition remains as high up on the political agenda as ever’”.

During our proceedings, so well marshalled by our clerks and advisers, I much appreciated the wise counsel of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, but perhaps the merits of our committee system are best illuminated by the qualities of our witnesses. Sir Scott Baker was persuasive. Then there was the professionalism of Senior District Judge Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate at Westminster magistrates’ court, and the right honourable Theresa May, our Home Secretary, whose straight bat was worthy of a place in a test match team. There was also Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP, with his whimsical elegance and sincerity, and a squadron of QCs—skilled presenters and experienced, insightful and confident advocates.

We also heard from our fellow citizens who had been extradited, who brought to our proceedings the still-remaining horror, shock and fear of the foreign courtroom. They gave us mostly no-nonsense, authentic accounts of what it was like to face the formality and the might of foreign law, with their liberty at stake. It could be said that they brought into our proceedings the very smell of remembered fear. It was therefore only right for our committee to consider seriously at length what our state decides about a citizen’s liberty in our name.

I found the visit to the Marylebone magistrates’ court most helpful. Judge Riddle and his colleagues were hospitable and informative. Their courts are unique, and their professionalism impressive. Perhaps these little-known courts truly reflect the British approach to law—an approach much to Britain’s credit. At Marylebone one sat alongside the district judge and observed everything that went on—the judge’s meticulous note-taking, her courteous interventions on the advocates below her, and her impartiality. The advocates were truly representing worried plaintiffs, and one saw the centrality of the interpreter; that was clearly very important. The system acknowledged the humanity of the situation, and there was, self-evidently, fairness. It seemed that each court required quite a number of employees to make it work, and here extradition was decided. To be present was to experience a learning curve that was helpful to the committee’s proceedings, so I thank the district judge who tolerated me in her court.

I referred to witnesses, and the United States system looms large in our report. So it should. Paragraph 443 refers to pre-trial conditions being perceived as harsh—excessively harsh. Paragraph 444 seeks,

“representations to the US authorities to agree the treatment of those extradited from the UK”.

I support that wholeheartedly.

Witness David Bermingham’s lengthy evidence was riveting and moving when one knew his supportive parents were present in our committee. As one of the NatWest Three, he brought authenticity to the committee. Extradition concerns a citizen’s liberty—in this instance, a highly educated, worldly-wise, sophisticated and imaginative banker told it as it really is from his point of view. When the might of American law bears down on one, it can be terrifying. Because of costs, Mr Bermingham eventually lodged in the home of his American lawyer. Matters dragged on and on and the financially hard-pressed NatWest Three then had to meet their wives who had crossed the Atlantic for decisive family talks. The upshot was plea bargaining, jail and fines. Whatever the merits of the case—I am not qualified to judge—David Bermingham’s evidence vividly justified the committee’s proceedings, as did the other representative witnesses.

The NatWest Three were British citizens surrendered to foreign law—to highly organised, most powerful, overwhelming law. One is not an advocate for the NatWest Three, but one is a total supporter of our committee’s stance on United Kingdom-United States extradition.