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

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

Again, my noble friend makes an extremely relevant point. The relationship between voting age and the age of majority has not been adequately considered, either. I hope that this will emerge in the course of the debate. I do not wish to take up too much of the House’s time, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am sure that other noble Lords will wish to explore further the pros and cons of that change. The burden of my message to your Lordships today is simply to state that the appropriate parliamentary processes for a constitutional change of this kind have not been properly observed—and that is something that should not pass without comment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is a short measure, but one that I believe will have a very positive impact on our democracy—across the United Kingdom as a whole, but most particularly in the relationship between the Members of the Scottish Parliament and local authorities in Scotland and the people who elect them, and on how politicians respond to the desires of voters when they are elected.

On the assumption that the Scottish Parliament will vote to use the power once it has been transferred, for the first time in these islands parliamentarians will be elected by people aged 16 and over. That will mean that in elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities, not only will 16 and 17 year-olds be taught about citizenship and informed in schools and colleges about the processes of democracy, but they will be active citizens themselves. They will be enfranchised, and they will be participants. That is right and proper, and a considerable and positive step.

MSPs will no longer see 16 and 17 year-olds simply as people for whom services are provided in schools or colleges, or by councils and elsewhere; they will have to consider them as voters—not only as the receivers of services but as people who will have a direct say in how those services are shaped and delivered. They will become part of the democratic relationship between those who are elected and those to whom they are accountable. That is important and this proposal is a first step towards that.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Would my noble friend like to comment on a point that has already been made: namely, that if 16 year-olds have the right to vote, should they not also have the right to stand as candidates? Will he give his views on that?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

There are two aspects to that. The first is the desire of young people themselves. For many years a consistent theme in campaigns to give people the vote at 16 is that participating in the democratic process does not automatically assume that exactly the same process should apply to those who are elected to Parliament to make these decisions. That comes from young people themselves. Secondly, the age of majority is not necessarily applied consistently as regards young people’s rights and responsibilities. For example, different approaches are taken as regards the minimum age at which one can drink alcohol, drive, join the military or buy knives. Today, we are discussing the specific issue of the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds. The age of majority and whether young people of 15, 16 and upwards should be granted other rights and responsibilities is quite rightly an area which we continue to debate—and which young people themselves continue to debate. I see that my noble friend is itching to intervene and I am delighted to give way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, but is he really arguing that 16 year-olds in Scotland should not be trusted to buy a packet of cigarettes but should be trusted to decide the future Government of the country?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am saying that there are differences in the rights and responsibilities of young people, and for those aged under 21, in these islands. In many instances the decisions made on why those rights and responsibilities differ for different ages are taken on their own merits. For example, decisions on the age at which one has the legal right to drive, join the Armed Forces or, indeed, buy articles that could potentially be used as weapons are taken on their own merits. Likewise, the proposal that 16 and 17 year-olds should also have the vote should be taken on its own merits.

I agree that there has not always been consensus on this issue among the political parties. When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrats worked hard with our Labour coalition partners to persuade them of the merits of this proposal, and we have done the same with our partners in this coalition. However, as my noble and learned friend indicated, there is now a settled consensus among the parties in the Scottish Parliament representing the whole spectrum of political view that this is the way forward.

I need not rehearse the arguments further about the merits of 16 and 17 year-olds voting, because to some extent the best evidence that I can provide was presented by the young people themselves in the referendum in Scotland. Those of us who took part in debates on the referendum will know that some of the best and most profound points in terms of perspective, responsibility and maturity were made by 16 and 17 year-olds who participated in them. Of course, that was a binary decision about the future of the country but there is no doubt in my mind that it demonstrated absolutely that not only can 16 and 17 year-olds be trusted to decide how they elect their representatives but it is important that we should now enshrine that in law.

My noble friend Lord Lang referred to turnout. He is quite right: the Electoral Commission’s assessment of the referendum in Scotland showed that the turnout of 16 and 17 year-olds was 75%. The rate dropped for those aged between 18 and 24 before it started to pick up for those aged 25 to 34 and those above 35. If I follow his rationale that democratic participation should start early and then develop, the best way of enhancing 18 to 24 year-olds’ participation in democratic elections is to enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds, as the evidence on turnout suggests that that will indeed be the case. Therefore, this delivers an agreement. The agreement is unanimous and I am delighted to support it.

My noble friend raised two final points on the committee report in which I was quite interested. First, I do not accept that a possible concern that other parts of the UK may have a desire to follow Scotland should be used as a negative to delay this. That other parts of the UK will learn from Scotland’s experiences should be seen as positive. I have no doubt that the Welsh experience that he cited was a result of people seeing the way in which 16 and 17 year-olds participated within Scotland in the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is only an apparent change. The noble Lord considers it one, but in fact there is no change. The Smith commission and indeed the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, are perfectly clear on the powers to be extended to the Scottish Parliament over the franchise, as part of other aspects. The draft clauses accurately reflect the ongoing view in paragraph 27 rather than paragraph 25 of the continuation of the supermajority. In the measure that we have in front of us today—this instrument—and in the draft clauses that Parliament will be debating after the general election, there is no change, as far as I see, in the Government’s position. The noble Lord may not agree with that, but that is my view.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

It is not about whether I agree with the merits of it; it is about the objective, factual position. I was not referring to the Smith commission. I was referring to the Government’s publication in response to the Smith commission. The noble Lord may say that it is apparently at odds with the legislation; I think that it is. I am not questioning the merits of the case that he is putting; I am just trying to get an explanation on why there has been an apparent change three times in three months.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I was referring, in my answer to the noble Lord’s previous intervention, to the heads of agreement of the Smith commission, in paragraphs 25 and 27, and, in annexe A, to draft Clause 4 on page 93, which brings into effect the recommendations of the Smith commission. This clause also brings into effect a recommendation of the Smith commission, which is to move, on the basis of unanimity in the Smith commission, to the delivery of this power for 16 and 17-year olds, so that the Parliament will have that authority in advance of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. There is no difference in that position on the Government’s part, apparent or otherwise, as far as I see it.

Finally, I joined my party at the age of 16. One of my reasons for doing so was because of the position that my party had to empower 16 year-olds to take part in parliamentary elections. I am delighted that this Government have acted on the unanimity of political views in the Scottish Parliament to deliver this, and that is why I will be delighted if this goes through Parliament today.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is that he must have been quite an extraordinary 16-year old if at that age he was thinking of joining the Liberal Democrats because it was going to reduce the franchise age to 16. I have to say that when I was 16, I thought that I was a socialist, but I grew out of that after a while.

I am participating in this debate not to argue the merits or otherwise of whether people should have the vote at 16, but because I think that the process by which this is being achieved is absolutely lamentable. We began our proceedings this morning by discussing whether former Members and MEPs should have access to the facilities—the restaurants and bars—of this place. I sat here thinking that this place is presenting itself to the outside world as if it was some kind of club, rather than a House of Parliament. This debate, and the way that the Government have dealt with the matter, shows that we are being treated as a kind of club and not as a second House of Parliament with particular responsibilities for constitutional matters.

We have here an excellent report from the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Lang has explained the reservations which have been drawn to the attention of the House by the committee, but the Government propose to charge on regardless. I have the highest regard for my noble and learned friend the Minister, but even he was struggling to make bricks out of this particular straw. He suggested that there was not really a commitment that contradicted the terms. Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement was published in January 2015 as Command Paper 8990. It has a foreword signed by the right honourable Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the right honourable David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which states that it is their response to the Smith commission proposals. On page 17, it states:

“To provide an adequate check on Scottish Parliament legislation changing the franchise”,

which is what we are discussing,

“the electoral system or the number of constituency and regional members for the Scottish Parliament, UK legislation will require such legislation to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament”.

Is this not UK legislation? Are we not discussing the franchise? What do those words mean if they do not mean what I say they mean? My noble and learned friend is being Humpty Dumpty. Words, it appears, for this Government mean whatever they believe them to mean and not what they say. This was a document presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister only a few weeks ago. We are entitled to ask why this change has been made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out, my noble and learned friend made a contradictory statement. He said that we are not having a supermajority because there is consensus that it should happen. As the noble Lord pointed out, if there is consensus, what is the problem with having a supermajority? My noble and learned friend did not make clear whether that supermajority is still required. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that there was consensus. Suppose that there was a majority in the Scottish Parliament that, having had a bad experience with the franchise set at 16, wanted to change it from 16 to 18. Would that require a supermajority, or has that provision simply been dropped? If the answer to my question is, yes, it would require a supermajority, is it not going to look a bit ridiculous to tell the Scottish Parliament that it can change the age to 16 but it needs a supermajority to change it back to where it was?

I am really dismayed that matters of this kind should be being dealt with by orders and regulations, which effectively prevents this House or, indeed, the other place, from making any amendments or changes and having any debate.

That brings me to my next point, which my noble and learned friend acknowledged. Included in the order is a proposal that the franchise should be extended to local government. There was nothing in Smith about that. There is nothing in this document that I can see—I stand to be corrected about that. It has come from nowhere for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the idea that we extend the franchise for local government, which may or may not be a good idea, has not been subject to proper scrutiny. No one in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom has had an opportunity to discuss the merits of it: there has been no consultation. As my noble friend Lord Lang pointed out—and has pointed out in the excellent report from the Constitution Committee of this House, which has had to be rushed out in order to meet this timetable, ahead of discussing the draft clauses to which this apparently relates—it is an extraordinary way of doing business.

In the early 1960s, as has already been mentioned, when we changed the franchise from 21 to 18, we did it after having two commissions. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, may take credit for it, as a Labour Government did this. The Labour Government in those days were very concerned about consultation and constitutional propriety and there were two separate commissions created to look at this before the change was made. One was on the age of majority, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was struggling with. How can it be right to have an age of majority that is different to the age of the franchise? We end up with the absurd position that 16 year-olds are not allowed to go and buy a pint of beer, to buy a packet of cigarettes, or to drive a car; but they are allowed to decide the future Government of their country. They are almost certainly not paying income tax or other taxes apart from indirect taxes; they will not even have a national insurance number when they are required to go on the register, because they will be 15. The national insurance number system, as the Constitution Committee report points out, is the means by which we check the identity of voters for the voters’ roll, so how is that going to work? There is nothing that I can see in the explanatory material provided by the Minister to explain any of this or to deal with the issue of whether 16 year-olds should be able to stand as candidates.

I happen to believe that, if you have the right to vote, you should have the right to stand. It is true that there has been a difference in the past. When I was at St Andrews University with the late Robert Jones—who was in the other place as the Member for West Hertfordshire and died rather prematurely—he stood as a student in St Andrews. He promptly got himself made chairman of the planning committee and started to block the principle of the plans of St Andrews for the expansion of the university, which caused a degree of consternation. It was argued then that a student should not be able to be on the council deciding these matters, but at the time people accepted that if you had the right to vote and participate in the election you should be able to stand as a candidate. This is illustrated by this House: the reason why Members of this House do not have a vote at the forthcoming general election is that we are our own representatives in Parliament. That is the constitutional theory. Therefore, if you are able to vote in the election, it seems to me that you should be able to stand and put forward your views. This is completely muddled.

What on earth are this Government doing? They seem to be making up constitutional change as they go along. They seem to be doing it under electoral pressure from the Scottish Nationalists, and—do you know what?—it does not seem to be working. Ladbrokes will give you very good odds on the SNP winning more than 39 seats in the forthcoming general election. You would not have got these odds before we made this foolish vow in the last minutes of the referendum campaign. This process of appeasement and making it up as you go along is creating instability in our country and feeding those who wish to break our United Kingdom. These are facts.

I have bored the Minister to death on this subject; I have spoken on it before and I warned him that if we introduced the opportunity for 16 year-olds to vote, then it would be argued that other parts of the United Kingdom should get the same. What do we have from this Government on the position in respect of Wales? Do we have a similar provision for the Welsh Assembly? Apparently not: we have a provision that 16 year-olds in Wales might get the vote in order to vote in a referendum on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly. Where is the logic of that? You would get to vote on tax-raising powers as a 16 year-old when you may not have to pay them but not get to vote for the Members of the Welsh Assembly. However, if you move north of the border you would get the opportunity to vote for the Scottish Parliament because there is consensus among the political parties about this. Why is there a consensus in Scotland? What about England?

What are this Government doing in bringing forward measures based on the Smith commission, which had a narrow remit? Its remit was to consider what was right for Scotland. It did not look at the rest of the United Kingdom or the implications for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am enjoying my noble friend’s contribution but, with regard to symbolism, I wonder which has the richer symbolism in what he is referring to. Is it David Cameron not consulting Ruth Davidson in advance of making that joint statement with the other leaders of the UK parties or, in some form of symbolic suggestion, moving the Stone of Scone up to Scotland in 1996 to cross the River Tweed with great fanfare?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am very proud of having taken—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is not symbolic at all, is it?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sure the House will get cross with me if I go on much longer but, as the noble Lord has raised the Stone of Scone, the reason that I persuaded the Prime Minister, who in turn persuaded Her Majesty the Queen, that the stone should be returned to Scotland—and the reason it came up as an issue—had nothing whatever to do with any symbolism.

Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2015

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will set out the situation in relation to the common agricultural policy— for convenience, I shall refer to it as “the CAP”—which this order seeks to address. Under the European legislation that governs the CAP, a “farmer” is defined by reference to a “holding” across the United Kingdom. However, farming businesses often do not fall neatly within Administration boundaries and, therefore, there are a number of businesses with land in more than one Administration within the United Kingdom. This means that the European regulatory reference to a “farmer” is not sufficient to identify those Scottish farmers over whom the Scottish Ministers should have administrative competence. This order will define a “Scottish farmer” as having land wholly or partly in Scotland. Collectively, those businesses with land in more than one Administration are known as “cross-border farmers”.

The system of agricultural support under the CAP was last reformed in 2003-04 to provide income support for farmers. Those arrangements were set out in Council Regulations (EC) 637/2008 and 73/2009. As part of those arrangements, the administrative responsibility for cross-border farmers needed to be resolved. Accordingly, two Scotland Act orders, the Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2004, a Section 30 order, and the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2004, a Section 106 order—I shall refer to them as the 2004 orders—facilitated the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers so that they could administer subsidy claims for Scottish farmers. These orders also tied in with the UK statutory instrument, the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Integrated Administration and Control System) Regulations 2009—I shall refer to them as the IACS regulations—since the EU rules require claims for subsidy to be administered by a single competent authority.

However, the current CAP arrangements come to an end on 31 December this year. The latest reforms for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the CAP are set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1307/2013, which includes repealing Council Regulations (EC) 637/2008 and 73/2009 with effect from 1 January 2015. Therefore, two new orders, in similar terms to the current 2004 orders, are required so that the Scottish Ministers can continue to administer claims as the competent authority under the IACS regulations in respect of cross-border farmers.

This order, to be made under Section 30(3) of the Scotland Act 1998, was laid before the House on the same day as its companion instrument, the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, to be made under Section 106 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Section 106 order is subject to annulment and so is not being considered with this Section 30(3) order. However, to fully understand what Section 30(3) achieves, it is important that Parliament is aware of the Section 106 order and how the orders work together.

This Section 30(3) order will ensure that certain functions should be treated as functions that are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, making it clear that the Scottish Parliament has competence to deal with cross-border farmers. Then the Section 106 order will provide that those functions relating to cross-border farmers may be exercised separately by Scottish Ministers. Ultimately, the two orders will combine, in a similar way to the 2004 orders, to allow the CAP scheme management arrangements to continue when the new arrangements take effect from 1 January 2015. Thus, the Scottish Ministers will be able to continue to administer claims as the competent authority under the IACS regulations in respect of cross-border farmers.

As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, pointed out when he responded to the previous order, this demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work and is a necessary solution to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the competence to deal with cross-border farmers. It is interesting that the previous order was under Section 104 of the Scotland Act and the one that we are dealing with now is under Section 30(3) and Section 106 of the Scotland Act. The next order relates to Section 111 of the Scotland Act. There is a whole series of instruments that are designed to ensure that the devolution settlement works properly. It is a tribute to officials not only in my department and the Scotland Office but probably in this case in Defra and the Scottish Administration, because I am aware of the close co-operation that there has been to bring these orders forward. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered this order on 26 November and the other place will consider it on 17 December. I commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for a clear exposition of how this order will impact on the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and use the good mechanisms of our constitutional arrangements to further strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Noble Lords will appreciate that, when I was a Member of that Parliament for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I represented a number of cross-border farmers as a Borders MSP. There were always ongoing issues with regards to cross-border status.

My query is specific to the context of the radical proposal for land reform that has been outlined in general terms by the Scottish Government, but not in specifics yet. Is the order limited specifically to CAP processing or will it in any circumstances relate to the law of succession of title of cross-border properties? Is this all now within the scope of Scottish Ministers? One has not been able to read in any great detail about the land reform proposals with regard to laws of succession on title for farming properties and land. I wonder whether this will now be wholly for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on, or will that continue to be an area where there are legal aspects for those farming families or the land, both north and south of the border, that remain within the competences of the two Parliaments?

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his clear exposition of what is in front of us. If farmers were facing confusion, doubt or difficulties in any transactions, it is only right that that should be addressed. There are some questions as to why this took so long if those questions had always been raised; nevertheless, this is a good move because it is only right that any extra anxiety, worries or time-consuming matters are removed from farmers and small businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made an interesting point. I thought that he would keep his fire for the third item of business. I thought of raising the matter myself, but it goes beyond the scope of this order. Seeing that someone has raised that issue, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give an answer.

Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 20 October 2014 now be considered. I hope that it will be useful to the Committee if I provide some background information on the fisheries management arrangements that prevail in respect of the River Tweed, as well as a brief summary of what this order primarily seeks to achieve.

Freshwater fisheries management and conservation in Scotland is largely regulated by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2003, which I shall refer to as the 2003 Act. In September last year, an amendment to the 2003 Act came into force providing a new enabling power that allows the Scottish Ministers to create a regime for the tagging of salmon caught in Scotland. The new Section 21A of the 2003 Act provides the power to require salmon that are caught, and retained, to be tagged. The purpose behind the regime is to enhance existing conservation measures for wild salmon and to ensure that fish that are caught in Scotland and find their way to market are traceable.

Although fisheries management is generally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, separate arrangements prevail in respect of the Borders rivers, as these flow through both Scotland and England. Section 111 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides:

“Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for or in connection with the conservation, management and exploitation of salmon, trout, eels, lampreys, smelt, shad and freshwater fish in the Border rivers”.

For the purposes of Section 111, the Borders rivers mean the Rivers Tweed and Esk.

An order made under Section 111 in respect of the Tweed—the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006, which I shall refer to as the 2006 order—is currently in force and broadly replicates much of the 2003 Act. However, existing provisions in the 2006 order do not provide the necessary powers to create a tagging regime. Accordingly, this order amends the 2006 order to introduce a new enabling power to allow provision to be made for the tagging of salmon, which replicates the regulation-making power in Section 21A of the 2003 Act for Scotland.

As a regime for tagging salmon already exists in the Lower Esk in Scotland, by virtue of by-laws made by the Environment Agency, introducing a parallel regime for the River Tweed ensures that similar regulations are in place for all of Scotland’s rivers and will ensure that, when a salmon-tagging scheme is introduced in Scotland as a whole, that scheme can be replicated for the Tweed. The tagging regime that exists in the Lower Esk also exists in England. Therefore, the introduction of a parallel regime for the River Tweed ensures no gap in regulations. Again, this is a practical demonstration of the devolution settlement working and I again place on record thanks to officials in the respective Administrations for their co-operation in bringing this order forward. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered this order on 19 November and the House of Commons will consider it on 10 December. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that it is not a duty, if one has the title of “Tweed”, to speak in everything related to Tweed. Indeed, I am not entirely sure whether I should declare an interest, given the title that I have adopted. I shall not delay the Committee much further. In these matters, one tends to defer to the wise men and women of the River Tweed Commission. After communications with the commission and acknowledgement that this is an enabling power for Scottish Ministers to bring forward details of how it will operate, as part of the ability to promote and recognise the produce from the finest river in the United Kingdom, I see no reason why the Committee should object to this—although other noble Lords with greater affinities for lesser rivers may perhaps have an issue.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

The local Liberals in the west of Scotland will be interested in the denigration of the great River Clyde, which provides employment for tens of thousands of people. I would not be so vindictive as to publicise it—or not much. Again, this is a common-sense measure. There is broad agreement on it and I do not think that anyone disputes that. I am sorry to have to say again—the Minister has already said it and I have said it—that it demonstrates that devolution works with common sense and that action can be taken quietly without any razzmatazz or publicity. The people of Scotland are well served by the 1998 Act and all its ramifications, which allow for measures such as this to take place in a businesslike manner. The order has our full support.

Scotland: Devolution

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Turnbull]

Not necessarily. Scotland would have to bring its spending into line with England and it would be getting the same grant from the centre as England. My recommendation corrects a favourable anomaly; it is not impoverishing Scotland compared with England.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I do not intend to take up too much of his time. When he refers to England, is he including a calculation for London, and is he also including what is currently statistically considered as non-identifiable expenditure for defence and how that is distributed across the different nations?

[Lord Turnbull]

I was referring to identifiable expenditure, not defence expenditure. The latter, of course, runs at a very high level in Scotland, with our major bases there. I have not addressed the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, raised, which is how you deal with separate regions within England. That is a further thing that we have to address.

The other change is that the population ratios must be kept much more up to date than they have been at present. My plea, therefore, is that we start a new relationship which gives proper weight to the principle in the vow of “sharing our resources equitably” across the whole of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord’s forward-looking and very practical contribution to the debate today. It was very interesting to hear of the broad areas of common ground between him and my noble friend Lord Shipley, pointing out some practical ways forward to noble Lords.

Over the last month since the vote in the referendum I have reflected on two main areas and they have stuck with me. The first is that for many people who voted in the referendum the issue was less what country they wanted to be a citizen of and more about what kind of country they wanted to live in and bring up their children in. It has been something that all parties that believe in the United Kingdom need to continue to reflect on. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others accurately pointed out that of those eligible to vote, 37% voted yes. We can use exactly the same definition when we come to the rather stark figure that 47% voted no. That, for me, is one of the areas where it is quite telling.

The second area, which is a much more optimistic reflection and one that shapes the rest of my contribution to today’s debate, was the discussions, interaction, listening and taking part in debates with 16 and 17 year-olds in the referendum. It was politically reaffirming but it also struck me that as a group a majority of them voted no. Many of them had their own definition of what a country and a state should look like. They frame what they want the country to be like to give them the best opportunity for the future in this fast-changing and complex world. They defined what a state would be and in many respects they rejected what was on offer by the Scottish Government in the White Paper, which they considered remarkably old-fashioned and in many areas incoherent. We need to challenge the threats ahead of us as a country, which take up much of our time in Parliament both here and in the one where I was proud to serve when I was in the Scottish Parliament. That is why for the year I have been in this place I have tried to take as many opportunities as I can to shape the debate about what happens next.

In June this year I was fortunate enough to have a Question for Short Debate:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for further reform and decentralisation of the United Kingdom in the event of Scotland voting “no” in the independence referendum in September”.

I have been in this House just a year, as I said, but I served two terms in the Scottish Parliament and five years on the Scottish Parliament’s finance committee. My views have been framed over that period. I was well aware very early on that in 1998 we created a devolved legislative but we did not create a Government in Edinburgh that had fiscal responsibility commensurate with legislative competence. Indeed, in many respects it is that key aspect that we are debating today. It is a coincidence perhaps, but a good one nevertheless, that it was the plenary of the Smith commission—a different Lord Smith—meeting in Edinburgh today discussing taxation: what tax basket would be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament—addressing the very issues on which the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, and others have been challenging us. A lot of thinking has been done in this area and there are lessons we can learn. There are strong, long-held principles on fiscal federalism from other countries in the world that are more comparable to the United Kingdom—as my noble friend Lord Tyler indicated with Canada and Australia—than perhaps other European federal nations. There are long-held principles of fiscal federalism that we can learn from in the United Kingdom. We do not always need to listen to the Treasury briefings that say that everything is really difficult and the default answer is no. We need to set political leadership and then the Treasury and others will follow.

Between being in the Scottish Parliament and in this place I wrote a series of proposals looking at these areas in detail. It was a regret to me at the time that when I met the Conservative Party it was holding to a line in the sand for no further powers and when I met the Labour Party a senior member of the party said to me, “We just do not like the choreography of being on the same stage as the Conservatives and you Liberals”. When I tried to propose two years ago a Glasgow agreement of common ground, common language and a common platform to go into the referendum campaign with a progressive narrative of what the United Kingdom is and can be, there was rebuff. It is an absolute delight that we are now in a position where all five parties in Scotland are around the table and this Parliament is seized of the positive opportunities ahead of us. We may yet still have a form of Glasgow agreement coming out of the Smith report and I declare an interest as chair of an all-party parliamentary group in this place set up on a cross-party basis trying as parliamentarians to forge that way forward.

Finally, I agree with other Members that one of the ways forward is what I have proposed as a conference of the new union meeting straight after the general election. My final appeal is that this should not be an opportunity to long-grass many of the issues or to rediscover many of the questions. We know what we need to resolve. The difficult part is political parties with vested interests often having to make uncomfortable compromises for their own sake. We have to do it because the figures of 37% and 47% should always stay in our mind. If that is the case, we have that on our shoulder but let us be optimistic and seize the opportunity that has been presented to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, quoted very accurately the words used in the statement in the Daily Record. As I indicated to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, with all his success in getting more money, it is the base line that is applied. With regard to Wales, it is understood and recognised—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

If the Minister will give way I will, for the information of the House, quote from the public expenditure statistical analysis by the Treasury in 2013 which shows that in 2008-09 the DEL resource grant, which may well be considered the transfer, was 7.7% of all of the grants for that year. The plans for 2015-16 are 7.96%, which is below the population share for Scotland. The point has been made about how you would balance that grant with the further tax powers. This is the work of the fiscal federalism principles of looking over a 10-year profile over economic cycles to make sure it is a balanced and fair proposal. The Strathclyde commission did it; the Liberal Democrat commission did it. There is work being done to inform this quite considerably.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, with respect to my noble friend who I know has studied it in great detail, I hesitate before going down the line of a 10-year fiscal federalism profile. I was about to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, with regard to the Supreme Court. The Scottish National Party has made a specific proposal. It would be wrong to second guess the Smith commission, but on the noble and learned Lord’s point about the role of the Supreme Court, if you have got a single market you should have a common set of principles and legal interpretation. This is very important and, as he will be well aware, both my own department and the Scottish Government established working groups during the passage of the Scotland Act 2012 to look at the role of the Supreme Court with regard to devolution issues. These are now compatibility issues and I hope that the Smith commission will have regard to that work, as both working groups reached very similar conclusions. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The commitment to deliver further powers for Scotland is of course in keeping with this Government’s record in decentralising power. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has indicated, this Government have made huge progress in devolving both responsibility and funding for schemes to a local level. Local enterprise partnerships and the ambitious city deals programme, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, are clear examples of our commitment to empowering local leaders to take decisions which best fit local circumstances and needs.

That is a demonstration of open-mindedness about how more powers might be devolved. We certainly do not believe that power should be hoarded at the centre but that it should be devolved to the nations, communities and individuals that will benefit from it. I was struck, in the course of our debate, by the very important contributions from those with a rich experience in local government: the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Leigh and Lord Beecham, and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Tope. They shared very constructive ideas with your Lordships’ House as to how we might improve existing arrangements, what new ones might be made and how powers might be used more imaginatively in our communities, our cities and those parts of the country which are not immediately connected with a major city. That is clearly an agenda which must be pursued as we go forward examining a whole range of constitutional issues.

With regard to other devolution of power within England, my noble friend Lord Dobbs referred to Walter Scott and the path to the Highlands and the danger for an Englishman. Treading into devolution for England by a Scotsman is almost as dangerous. I always tread very carefully indeed. From what was said this evening, it is very clear that this is something which should be addressed. As I indicated earlier, this is not an alternative to the so-called EVEL; it is a both/and rather than an either/or.

As my noble friend Lord Greaves, the northern home-ruler, said, there is no consensus in England as to where we might go. There must be an opportunity for further debate. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, made a very clear case for greater devolution within England. He said that the regions of England had to be consulted as to where they might go. There are proponents of regional government throughout England. There are difficult issues over the possibility of the creation of extra layers of government. There have been advocates of a separate English Parliament, although that raises questions over location and composition, and whether it would be any more decentralised than the present arrangements. While in Scotland there was a settled role of the Scottish Parliament, the picture in England is less clear. My noble friend Lord Tyler indicated that my own party advocates provisions of flexible and responsive devolution on demand. There is a wider debate to be had. My noble friend Lord Shipley set out a strong, healthy agenda for such a debate.

Scotland: Devolution Commission

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as we heard the Reading Clerk read out a moment ago, and have heard numerous times, we are Peers of the United Kingdom. That puts us in a slightly different position from those who are elected to represent specifically Scottish constituencies.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is, indeed, a historic day when all five major parties in Scotland meet round the table to discuss the way forward for Scotland. This will require those parties that have published proposals not only to form an agreement on the basis of principles but to compromise and, indeed, for some—not exclusively the Labour Party—to go beyond the proposals that they have already published. If that is the case, which we all hope that it will be, will the Government commit to promote actively the result of this to make sure that all families and voters in Scotland are aware of these home rule proposals for the long term? Will the Government also commit to meeting their deadline for bringing forward draft clauses to bring forward the conclusions of the Smith commission for legislation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s latter point, the Government have indicated that they will bring forward draft clauses and, indeed, will do so by Burns Night, 25 January 2015. My noble friend makes an important point about the importance of ensuring that people in Scotland know what these proposals will be. We have sometimes undersold the very significant additional powers that have been made available to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2012.

Scotland within the United Kingdom

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is remarkable that a 300 year-old union between nations peacefully and democratically renewed itself. It is incumbent on this Parliament and the parties within it to carry through their vows. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, it is very welcome that the publication is ahead of time in commencing its work. Liberal Democrats, with our colleagues and friends in the campaign for Better Together, indicated that a vote of no in the referendum was not a vote for no change.

The Command Paper’s analysis of the proposals by the three parties will assist in informing the public for their participation in the Smith commission. If the vow by the SNP is to be held, that this is a once-in-a-generation vote, then the proposals coming out of the Smith commission and those that will form the draft clauses, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, will also need to stand the test of time for the long term. That is why I and others in this Chamber have put forward for consideration a conference on the new union with a wider scope for other parts of the United Kingdom reform process too.

Will the noble and learned Lord also reflect on my view that if these proposals are to stand the test of time, and if the results of the Smith commission and the draft clauses will, in effect, be home rule proposals, then every household and voter in Scotland will need to be aware of them and their consequences? It will be insufficient for the Government simply to publish draft clauses that may well form part of a referendum. It will be important for the Government to make sure that every household in Scotland, through a publication direct through the letterbox, will be aware of the proposals and the potential opportunities for them, so that this is for the long term and for our lifetime.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I agree that these proposals must stand the test of time and re-emphasise the fact that Scotland and the United Kingdom remain united. It would not be right for the people of Scotland, who voted so decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom, if we then adopted proposals that started to unpick and unravel the union. I do not believe that that is what people expect.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, are right to draw attention to the fact that the Command Paper has been published ahead of time. I am not sure whether there ever was a budget, so I cannot say that it was within budget. My noble friend asked me to make commitments about sending things to every household. I am not sure that I can make such commitments on the hoof, but I take his point. It is an important point because I sometimes think that we have never been given the full credit for what Parliament passed in the Scotland Act 2012. Indeed, someone who was campaigning on the yes side said to me, “Why did you guys and girls never make more of the powers that have actually been transferred?” We have seen in the past few days, with the Finance Secretary John Swinney making tax proposals on the replacement of stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax, that these powers are now real. With the Scottish rate of income tax kicking in in April 2016, substantial powers are already in train and being delivered on the back of a commitment made by each of the three parties in their manifestos at the last election. So when some people question our willingness to hold to what we commit to, we need to point not only to what we did then, but also to what the Labour Government did in 1997.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am the 23rd speaker in today’s debate and the 23rd male. Of the 40 speakers who will be taking part in the debate, with the notable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Adams of Craigielea, who I was grateful to for taking part in my debate last week, 39 will be male. That is neither representative of this House nor of the country and I hope that all our groups may reflect on why that is the case today.

There will be a genuine tinge of sadness for me when I cast a vote in the referendum because I will effectively be asked to choose between two things that I love. I will also be asked, in a negative way, to affirm support for what is a remarkable coming together of peoples, histories and cultures in our union, as we have been debating this afternoon. Equally, there will be many fellow voters who will simply be elated by the opportunity to vote in that referendum; they hold sincere views and I respect them for that. However, my sadness will be tempered by a quiet pride that this union, without resorting to state terror, armed conflict or repression from government, would allow itself to be democratically dissolved because that was the democratic will of people who had chosen a different path from the one that we here would choose, as we have been discussing today. They would be doing it democratically and through a ballot. They want a different path for their country.

I have not been able to see the deadly disputes around the world since we have been having our debate on Scotland without reflecting on how we are carrying out our process differently. That is something that should give us pride. Scottish Nationalists seek to take credit for this and say that it is a peculiarly Scottish characteristic in this debate, but it is actually a remarkable thing about our United Kingdom that through tough times of great national peril where the very existence of our union has been threatened by foes from abroad, through times of imperial expansion when we have seen our position in the world grow exponentially, through times of famine or economic crash at home and through times of remarkable economic growth due to international trade—with all our shared history—we still have a compassionate and profound position that, if people within one part of our nation choose that they do not wish to continue to be part of it, this union will end. The Constitutional Committee of your Lordships’ House shows the process that could commence if that were the view.

I share the position of one of the four Knights of the Thistle who have been taking part in the debate today, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: I will cast a no vote.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

There are two more to come.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

And two more to come. I do not know what the collective noun for Knights of the Thistle is; maybe a contribution later in the gap could tell us what it is.

I will be casting my no vote and endorsing a bigger and better vision, which is that Scotland can have an opportunity and a thriving future as part of our union. Part of the positive future in rejecting independence is founded also on my commitment to do what I can in working with colleagues across parties in this House and in other Parliaments in Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England to help to bring about a refreshed union. Why do I feel that the union needs to be refreshed? Noble Lords have already highlighted some of the reasons in the debate today. We remain a too centralised state and this has skewed decision-making. We established national legislatures but we did not establish fiscally accountable Governments. This has skewed decision-making in the nations. We have not created a coherent narrative for the reasons why our services for all the UK should be for all the UK, such as pensions, macroeconomics or single-market policies, and why we believe it is better that some policies should be decided at a national level.

Without a proper narrative explaining why that is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord McFall, warned us, we will be perpetually in an ad hoc situation with regard to devolution. I agree profoundly with my noble friends Lord Stephen and Lord Steel of Aikwood, who quoted Jo Grimond saying that devolution is power retained in this place rather than a proper decentralisation of power to the nations, and then to the regions, by the fact that they are there in their own right for better governance rather than just because it suits this Parliament at any given time.

The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Richard, commented that we will benefit from this Parliament being a more representative of the nations and the regions within England. I agree with them. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness ably presented the strong opportunities for Scotland in continuing in the UK, and I need not rehearse those arguments. I hope that all of us will be reinforcing them with passion and gusto over the next 85 days.

What is the future of our union and how can we express it so that people outside Parliament are enthused by it and feel that it is representative of them and that they can play an active role within it? In many respects, the case for many aspects of this union is made by the SNP, which, even with independence, wishes to continue to be part of it: the head of state, the currency, the BBC and pensions are all unions that it wishes to leave but rejoin, most likely on poorer terms. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred to a former constituent of mine, Sir Walter Scott. In his “Marmion” he said,

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!”.

That sums up the SNP’s position on the unions in this land. It is worth pointing out to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, that “Marmion” was about Flodden Field.

I have put forward a proposition for a conference of the new union to take place shortly after the general election in 2015 to complement the conference on the new Scotland that my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael has announced will commence after the Scottish referendum. The purpose of the conference on the new Scotland is to bring together those who have already published their proposals for what further powers should be provided to the Scottish Parliament, for making the Scottish Parliament a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s institutions and for this Parliament permanently to cede authority over legislating on what are currently home rule areas. I believe that a conference on the new union should take place in a similarly consensual way after the general election to address the relationships between the nations, Whitehall institutions and the Westminster Parliament. It should last no longer than six months and should therefore be focused and inclusive. It should be government sponsored, with the intention that it will result in legislation that can be presented within the next term of the United Kingdom Parliament, and it should focus on entrenching the legislatures in the United Kingdom, making their legislative capacity permanent and making the relationship between them and our institutions here in Westminster and Whitehall decided not unilaterally here but by a bilateral process with them. Importantly, it should also address issues concerning the governance of England.

Without such a conference of the new union, without it being focused and without it being the intention, on a cross-party basis, to deliver legislation, we will perhaps continue to be searching for the overriding narrative for supporting the union. Unless we do it, up to 40% of the people of one nation in this country will continue to believe that their views and future aspirations are not being addressed by the union. I passionately believe in the union but equally I believe very strongly that work needs to be done to make sure that it respects and is representative of their views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think I said in my evidence to the committee that there was a possibility of a Section 30 order but that there are difficulties with that. I indicated that there might have to be very limited legislation, if only to allow the Scottish Government to put together a negotiating team and enter into negotiations. As the noble and learned Lord probably knows better than anyone in the House, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, the propensity for some people to litigate in areas like this could be very great. If that were the situation that we were in, although we sincerely hope that it will not be, it would be important to put the negotiations on a proper legal footing so that they could not be subject to some further challenge.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am conscious not to take up more time. Following on from the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the Scottish Government have put forward, in the documents that have been referred to, the assertions that the Scotland Act would be revised again. They have said that, together with the enactment of the Scottish independence Bill, the existing Scotland Act would be amended, but in the document they have not said by whom and when.

If I am correct in thinking that the concordat still exists between the Scottish Government and the UK Government that any proposals put forward by the Scottish Government that may impinge on reserved matters should be discussed in advance with the United Kingdom Government, was there any discussion or any forenotice by the Scottish Government that they would be bringing forward this matter, drafted by civil servants and presented to the people of Scotland as a Scottish Government paper?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

Scotland: Independence Referendum

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The distinguished former Member of your Lordships’ House, Earl Russell, described the essential relationship between Scotland and England as that which could be defined by saying that England could brook no equal, and Scotland no superior. The motto of the oldest continuous regiment in the Regular Army, the Coldstream Guards—“Second to none”—is testimony to that. As a borderer, my area has seen the tensions realised over the centuries. No doubt, my ancestors, who were witness to the bloody dispute on Flodden Field, may have some sympathy when I see a less bloody dispute at Murrayfield between the two warring partners in 10 days’ time.

This debate has heard much of poetry and pragmatism. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that the best poetry was best delivered by my former colleague, my noble friend Lady Goldie. If many noble Lords thought that the only Conservative politician to be stranded on a zip wire was Boris Johnson, they need to refer back to my noble friend Lady Goldie, who was the first to pioneer that media stunt in an election campaign in my former constituency a number of years ago.

That, as well as a longer history, has been part of today’s debate. However, in my short contributions to previous debates in your Lordships’ House on this subject, I referred to a girl who would be born in Scotland on the day of the referendum, who would be likely to see the 22nd century, and her granddaughter the 23rd century. In that regard, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, set exactly the right tone for our national debate taking place in Scotland and across the whole UK: the choice ahead of those of us who have a vote in Scotland is between the ever more diluted and nebulous concept of independence that is being presented or a reformed and refreshed union. I very much respect the contribution made to Scottish politics by the noble Lord, Lord Lang, but I regret his saying in this debate that those of us who are passionate about the union and Britain, and see the benefit that reforms can bring, should be getting real.

A decade ago, when I served on the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee, I wrote a paper arguing that while the establishment of a Scottish legislature was unquestionably a good thing, we did not establish a Scottish Government or have the recourse to reforms to Whitehall and Westminster that allowed a more federal type of United Kingdom to be developed. That is why there is an opportunity ahead of us to seize that issue and offer the people of Scotland an opportunity to reject independence but put their faith in a reformed and improved union. I concur wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in his illustrations of the benefits of the Scottish Parliament. To his examples, I could add: land reform, which languished on the shelves of officials who did not secure parliamentary time in Westminster; criminal and civil law reform; the first legislation on freedom of information in the UK, which included its own Parliament in that legislation—something that this place learnt, to its cost, that it should have done; reform of local government; and electoral reform. Many of those instances were put forward through the leadership of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, working together in coalition. They saw coalition work in the United Kingdom, after a long break, which was also a contribution that reform can bring. Those are examples of parts of progressive reform in progressive institutions.

The very much admired and much missed John P Mackintosh said in another place in 1976:

“One party, with which I have much sympathy—the nationalists—says ‘If you feel Scottish and want to run your own affairs, you must have the full panoply of statehood—with an army, a navy, an air force, ambassadors abroad and the lot’. I do not think that the Scottish people want that. The other group, the Unionists, say ‘If you feel British, if you value British traditions and respect British parliamentary democracy, and if you think that the big industries have to cover the whole of Britain, you cannot have a degree of self-government which reflects your needs in your own areas.’ I reject both propositions. Institutions have to be the servants of political demands. We have people in Scotland who want a degree of government for themselves at the Scottish level. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise the institutions to meet those demands and thus strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/76; cols. 1829-30.]

That happened. However, we have an opportunity to question whether that system was the best for the future. Is the settlement we have the most stable and beneficial for the rest of the life of that young girl who will be born next year?

A decade ago, I wrote the paper to which I referred. More recently in my work—I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the think tank Reform Scotland—I was the author of the devo-plus reports, published in 2012. They sought to establish an objective look at where the most appropriate balance of power and accountability would lie for the most efficient and stable delivery of public services in Scotland, and across the rest of the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity to put the Scottish Parliament on a more permanent constitutional footing, allow it fiscal power commensurate with its legislative power, and ensure that there is proper accountability and elections in the Scottish Parliament, so that when I was an MSP people would not have asked me where the money was raised from for the services on which it was spent, but would have asked simply how it should be spent. There should be more robust legislative underpinning of the financial relationship with the Scottish Parliament. That is unsustainable in the future because the devolved Scottish budget is treated effectively as a departmental budget line in the Treasury documents. It is also no longer sustainable that the funding formula for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland can be arbitrarily changed by the Treasury or that, if we consider the Scottish Parliament to be permanent, it can be abolished by a one-line piece of legislation in this Parliament.

It is an absolute pleasure and an honour to be part of a debate to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has contributed. He said in a judgment on AXA General Insurance v the Lord Advocate in the Supreme Court:

“The dominant characteristic of the Scottish Parliament is its firm rooting in the traditions of a universal democracy. It draws its strength from the electorate. While the judges, who are not elected, are best placed to protect the rights of the individual, including those who are ignored or despised by the majority, the elected members of a legislature of this kind are best placed to judge what is in the country’s best interests as a whole”.

I believe passionately that it is in the best interests of Scotland to remain a successful and progressive part of the United Kingdom, but we need to look very clearly at the form and we need to offer people a positive choice in the referendum. In that regard, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and others are correct in saying that we have an opportunity to provide people with a positive choice for the future.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, many noble Lords have reflected upon Scotland’s historic contribution to the union. That is entirely understandable, and I share it. A girl born in my former Scottish Parliament constituency on 18 September 2014 will glimpse the 22nd century and her grand-daughter is likely to see the 23rd century. There are many people in Scotland, such as myself, who wish to be taking part and to have a voice in a debate about the long-term prospects of the future of Scotland. One scenario is being outlined with the trappings of a new state, and one argument is being presented by those who want an independent state for Scotland. It is for those who believe in that course of action to defend it, and it is quite right that those proposals are scrutinised forensically and robustly. I would rather wish to debate a positive future for Scotland and its role with the United Kingdom. With long-term sustainable, equitable funding for Scottish services, we can deliver educational attainment that is the best not only in these islands but in Europe. We could see child poverty abolished in that girl’s lifetime, and we could see her contribution match, perhaps, some of the historic contributions that Scots have made in the past. It means that the United Kingdom has to be fit for that purpose, and so far the United Kingdom is not fit for that purpose when it comes to its structures and institutions.

I do not need to look at a hypothetical way forward over the next 18 months towards—as some noble Lords have said—a fanciful independence day. For five years, I was on the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament, and I know that it is not sustainable. I know that a parliament in these nations cannot be sustained almost exclusively on handouts when it does not have revenue powers that are commensurate with its legislative powers, otherwise we will have a permanent parliament in these nations where the electorate will reward rhetoric rather than results. It also means that the case against independence is not so much that it cannot work; rather that being part of the United Kingdom—a refreshed United Kingdom—is far better for the people of Scotland than is independence.

Finally, if this United Kingdom is not successful for that girl born on independence day, she will continue to have some of the unequal life opportunities that currently exist. In my former constituency, the girl would have a life expectancy of 82 years. Just an hour and a half over the hills to Glasgow, her life expectancy would be 14 years less. Her chances of dying of alcohol morbidity would be immeasurably higher, and her life opportunities would be fewer because of unemployment and a poorer education.

I believe that the choice is not one of independence versus the status quo, and I endorse my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart’s contribution. The choice is either that March 2016 could be seen as state building, or that we in this House and in another place carry through progressive reforms to make the United Kingdom better, and Scotland within that a more prosperous and forward-looking country. That, I hope, is the best that we can provide the girl born on referendum day.

Glasgow Helicopter Crash

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I endorse and echo what the noble Baroness said about Jim Murphy. Those of us who saw that interview realised the spirit of someone whom many of us know. It was all too typical of Jim to do something like that. On the particular helicopter—the EC135—as I said, it is obvious that at this stage of the investigation the cause of the crash is unknown. That type of helicopter has been operated successfully, both in the United Kingdom and internationally, and has a good safety record. At this time we are not aware of any information that would lead us to consider this type as unsafe, but if at any time the European Aviation Safety Agency, which has the approval process, is concerned that the aircraft type is unsafe, it can ground all operations. However, that decision has not been taken.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as the son of a long-standing emergency worker, I, too, associate myself with the warm tribute that the Minister, and in another place the Secretary of State, gave to emergency workers across Scotland. Those professionals take extraordinary risks to make sure that we continue to be safe and well. I associate myself and the Liberal Democrat Benches with those remarks. Will the Minister commit the United Kingdom Government to ensuring that whatever review is carried out as a result of those investigations into helicopter flights over cities and rural areas, recommendations are acted upon, because of the necessity of rotary-wing emergency aircraft for Scotland? Will the Minister make sure that those in the Clutha Bar who have been affected by this tragedy are aware that in perhaps their time of greatest need their fellow Glaswegians, their countrymen and women and those across all of these islands stand with them? Will he ensure that the support that is necessary is provided to those who are affected, not only at the moment but for the weeks and months to come, and that Her Majesty’s Government provide support to Glasgow City Council—to endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy—and to the Scottish Government?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, on that final point, it is obvious that it has been a pretty traumatic experience for those who were involved. I hope that over the days, weeks and months ahead, they will find strength and comfort from the strong support for them in the community. I repeat that it has been made clear to Glasgow City Council that we stand ready to give such help as may be appropriate. I echo the tribute he paid to emergency workers.

I have heard it said by some who have been there that because of the particular site of the tragedy, the investigation has been one of the most complex they have ever worked on. Those who undertook much of the rescue and recovery work were doing so in dangerous circumstances. That simply underlines the debt that we owe them. Obviously it is premature to speculate on what kind of recommendations would be made. However, I am sure that the recommendations, be they addressed to government or other bodies, are ones that will require to be properly and fully responded to.