Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

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.

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

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

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?

Scotland: Devolution

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

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

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

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

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[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—

Glasgow Helicopter Crash

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

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.