Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I heard the stringent comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am sure that they will be noted. Having had experience of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and your Lordships’ House, if there is a thread that links these three experiences it is that the usual channels have currents and depths that I have rarely, if ever, been able to fathom.

[Lord Sewel]

Of course we do not hold the Minister at all responsible for what happens in the usual channels, but it seems rather perverse that we have discussed this Bill late at night and on Thursdays, under pressure of time. I accepted that because of the nature of the parliamentary timetable, but then we were told that we are having an extra week’s recess. Those extra days would have enabled this Bill to be given the due and proper consideration that it deserves, and I hope that the Minister and my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will pass on those comments to the usual channels.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

This almost proves my point. I am sure that these points will be noted and I will indeed draw them to the attention of colleagues.

With regard to the further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the number of days between Committee and Report, it was agreed between the usual channels, and as a result of a delay for further sessions in Committee to take place after the end of the consultation on the referendum, there was a need to reduce. As I indicated, that was agreed. In response to his further point, all parties—or at least all non-Scottish National parties that fought elections in Scotland: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats—had these proposals in their manifestos and I do not think it is fair to say that they had not been aired at all prior to the general election, nor indeed since.

I welcome the general support that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, has given to these moves, in the spirit of seeking agreement. He asked about insolvency. Specifically, there will be engagement with the Scottish Government to ensure that the modernisation programme contained in the reforms of 2009-10 is delivered in Scotland for the benefit of those affected by corporate insolvencies.

More generally, the Accountant in Bankruptcy is an executive agency of the Scottish Government that holds policy responsibility for devolved insolvency matters in Scotland, and the Insolvency Service is aware of the need to stay in close contact with counterparts in the Accountant in Bankruptcy’s office, as indeed already happens, to help ensure that as far as possible developments in insolvency law in devolved areas do not create unnecessary difficulties for users of the legislation. So there are the specific provisions of the 2009-10 changes, which we have had assurances will be implemented, and there is a means by which we can maintain contact and dialogue in the longer term.

With regard to health professionals, like the noble and learned Lord, I was a member of the Calman commission and certainly took this matter seriously. He will appreciate that we have agreed to seek removal of this clause on the receipt of assurances that the Scottish Government will work with us to ensure consistency in the regulation of health professionals. I sometimes wonder if we had had some representations from the Scottish Government when we sat on the Calman commission whether we might have been able to reflect those in the report, but that was not the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the procedure from here on in. In his letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy, Mr Bruce Crawford, having gone through the terms of the agreement, indicated:

“I can therefore confirm that the Scottish Government is now prepared to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it consents to the Bill, amended in line with your proposals, and supported by the undertakings in your letter”.

Of course, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is my understanding that the Scotland Bill Committee of that Parliament will meet to discuss the amendments on Wednesday. We expect that the legislative consent Motion will be debated after the Easter Recess but before Third Reading in your Lordships’ House. Given the engagement that there has been, I very much look forward to the Scottish Parliament approving the Motion to support the Bill. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

My Lords, I wish to ask a question in the context of the amendment. I seem to remember that when the Scotland Act was passed, discrimination issues were reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. That was certainly the case as far as the Equal Opportunities Commission was concerned and, in a sense, this is an extension of the commission’s argument. My question is as follows: why cannot provision for English students to be treated on the same basis as other European students be earmarked in the block grant? Most of us who follow history are aware that when a large number of Scots descended on Scotland after the Act of Union, discrimination was not unknown. That would have been condemned by Scottish parliamentarians at the time, and it is extremely difficult to justify an element of discrimination against students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government can come up with a solution.

There are two principles at stake. One is whether discrimination is wrong and the other is whether this should be treated solely as a devolution issue. It comes down to whether the principle of outlawing discrimination is one that comes under the United Kingdom Parliament and should be enforced throughout the United Kingdom, or whether it should be treated primarily as a devolution issue. It is very hard to justify the existence of discrimination against those who come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If discrimination is tolerated in one case, it will be tolerated in another case. As a Parliament, we should do everything within our power to prevent this anomaly continuing.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, perhaps because of my previous interest in Scottish higher education, I have been somewhat targeted by universities in Scotland. I must say, from the start, that I find myself in the difficult position of being in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who was my chancellor. I was targeted for making what have been called “unhelpful comments” in Committee. I quite like making unhelpful comments in Committee. Of all the representations that I have received, not one adequately addressed the EU anomaly. They were silent on that. They were, of course, concerned, institution by institution, with the need to protect their income but that is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Government, not for this Parliament. The Scottish Government could easily devise a funding formula that enabled English domiciled students to be supported at Scottish universities.

The other thing that I have found offensive—I use the word carefully, but I do use it—is the argument that if there is not this discrimination, Scottish universities will be swamped by English students. That has something akin to the ring of ethnic cleansing about it. I say that as someone who has, fortunately, had the great privilege of being educated in an English, a Welsh and a Scottish university. As my noble friend Lord Morgan said, anything that turns away from that great value just does not understand the nature of higher education as a universal good.

Let us come down to the grubbiness of it. When I was a Scottish Office Minister I was in charge of the first comprehensive spending review. As we developed the argument, I asked the simple question: what would happen if Scottish universities were funded out of the block grant on the basis of Scottish students? My officials turned to me and said: “Minister, we would at least have to close one Scottish medical school. The best card we have up our sleeve to defend the Barnett formula is that we educate English students out of the Scottish block”. Just think what the implications for higher education would be if that became the reality: much more than the problem of solving English students being properly financed to attend Scottish universities.

That is in the past. Issues like this can usually be reduced to very simple propositions. The simple proposition here is that what is intended is deeply and grossly unfair and nothing that I have read or heard persuades me otherwise.

[Lord Stephen]

None of this is simple. The Scottish Parliament came forward with some very practical and pragmatic solutions to try its very best to tackle this problem. Back in 2000, when we first looked at the problem, the big issue was how we treated Scots attending universities outside Scotland, because they, too, are prejudiced—in terms of some of the quite extreme language which has been used at times in this debate. For them, there is a system that is different from that for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland when they choose to study at a university outside Scotland. I referred to the legal advice that we received that day when I said in the Scottish Parliament:

“We wished to treat all Scots the same, but a significant problem was drawn to our attention. Members have asked for the legal advice and I will try to be helpful on that point … Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union prohibits discrimination on the ground of nationality against nationals of other EU states. The imposition of fees on students who are students of other member states as a condition of access would amount to discrimination if the fees were not imposed on nationals of the host member state … We had to consider whether we, in Scotland, as part of the UK member state, could provide that Scots—who for this purpose would be regarded as UK nationals—did not pay tuition fees in the rest of the UK. Given the risks of challenge by other EU nationals and based on the best advice available, we produced the proposals that are before us today”.

In other words, if we had funded Scottish students to attend universities in England, Wales or Northern Ireland without payment of tuition fees, to put them on a level playing field with other students in Scotland, the Scottish Government could have been held liable to fund the tuition fees of all EU nationals from outside the rest of the UK who attended universities in the rest of the UK. This is a complex and difficult problem created, in many ways, by the EU legislation. “Change your lawyers”, I hear from the Bench in front in me, but we were given that advice by some very senior lawyers, one of whom is present on the Opposition Bench today—a noble and learned lawyer. We came up with what were called the Quigley principles—how many people remember them? It was all about creating some sort of level playing field. I am not going to get into the rather offensive language of ethnic cleansing or use the word “swamping”. We simply wanted to stop a surge in demand—a disruption of the system that currently allows over 20,000 students from the rest of the UK to study in Scotland. That is a significant number of students, it has been a pretty stable number of students and it has only stayed stable because we have managed to maintain a level playing field. We were given legal advice that this was the only legal way to do it—that quotas would not be acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stephen]

I agree with the noble Lord. The answer is that there was not enough intergovernmental discussion because the UK Government were entirely hostile to the notion that tuition fees should be removed for Scottish students. Their hostility was made known to us on more than one occasion. They were unhappy with what was proposed in Scotland.

Scottish students had their fees paid by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and then, separately, the £5,000 payment from the funding council was given for their tuition. In other words, until now, English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students were part of the cap as well as Scottish students. It is important to make that point.

We introduced that pragmatic solution to a potentially major problem, which could have scuppered the proposal to get rid of tuition fees in Scotland. I have to say that many of my colleagues in the Labour Party, my friends whom I worked with in coalition, subsequently said that it was one of their proudest boasts, their proudest achievements through the Scottish Parliament to get rid of tuition fees in Scotland. It was certainly one of mine. As I said, back in 2000, we were disappointed with the legal advice that we were given at the time and wished that it were different. If it can be changed, let us change it.

The bigger question, in my view, is the one mooted by more than one noble Lord this evening: if Scotland were to be independent, how would the Scottish Government tackle the legal situation? It would be difficult to understand how they could legally respond to the challenges I have described. Free tuition would then have to be offered to all EU students, including those from Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. We have not heard a response from the SNP on that issue.

The situation now is that English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students are being moved outside the cap. That is another important point. The funding from students will now be sufficient to remove the need for a contribution from the funding council. Why is that? Self-evidently, because fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been allowed to increase so much. There will now be the £9,000 per year limit, so English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students will be in the same position as international students, who have always been discriminated against—if that is the language we wish to use. They will be put in the same position as international students, but with a cap of £9,000 per year.

In my view, the preferred solution would be to remove tuition fees across the whole of the UK. That would work equally well in tackling the problem— removing it, to use a political phrase, at a stroke. The policy was never to fund all EU students. That is not what we wished to do; that was what the legal advice drove us to do.

[Lord Sewel]

The noble Lord has given us a detailed exposition of the funding difficulties. Perhaps he could carry that a little further in terms of what he thinks the effect on the Barnett formula would be if the Scottish Funding Council funded only Scottish-domiciled students.

[Lord Stephen]

As I understand it, there would be no effect on the Barnett formula, so the £85 million per year currently spent on the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students to attend universities in Scotland would become available to the Scottish Government as those funding arrangements changed. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, looks incredulous at that, but that is my understanding.

To finish, different policies for different parts of the UK so that different people, including students, can be treated differently sounds to me pretty much what decentralising power, devolution, is all about. It is surely the responsibility of those elected to the Scottish Parliament to introduce new ideas and new policies. What we found deeply uncomfortable was the notion that you could discriminate within a member state but not between member states. That seems nonsense, but I know of no other way to tackle it based on the legal advice and the pragmatic solution that we have chosen. Let us be honest, this is hardly a burning issue of major importance in the reaction of students and families across the UK, because we still have ready access through our pragmatic solutions for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students to universities in Scotland and we continue to have Scots attending universities outside Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sewel]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I put it to him that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has spoken for virtually the whole House in explaining the deep bitterness that people feel about the EU anomaly. In discussions with the First Minister, has the Minister or any of his colleagues pointed out to the First Minister that if he was successful in achieving his primary political policy objective, which is independence, then all these arguments would fall away? There would be the opportunity for English domiciled students to go to Scotland and there would be no way in which a Scottish Parliament would be able to impose a differential fee. Has the Minister pointed that out to the First Minister?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have not pointed it out personally but, frankly, it is not the best argument for the case that the noble Lord has been prosecuting. He certainly does not wish to see an independent Scotland; neither does my noble friend Lord Forsyth or anyone who has spoken in this debate. The argument that this will all be the consequence of an independent Scotland is perhaps one argument for why we should resist an independent Scotland.

[Lord Sewel]

I just hoped that there was at least the glimmer and possibility of consistency.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

These are proper issues for debate. It is not the Government’s intention to bring forward any amendment with regard to a referendum, as I shall make clear when we come to debate the matter, when issues such as those raised by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and others can be more thoroughly aired.

I hear the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on the provisions of the Holtham model, and those made by my noble friend Lord Caithness on when certain issues might be debated on Report. In the spirit in which some of us discussed matters earlier this week to facilitate these debates, I am more than willing to convene a meeting—either in person or on the phone—to see how we can best order business on Report to meet the different needs in different parts of the House, to ensure proper debate on these issues and to see if there is a way in which we can further debate Holtham. I am happy to commit to write and provide additional detail ahead of Report stage to assist noble Lords. It may be useful if we have a dialogue to see how we might facilitate a proper discussion for Lordships on the so-called Holtham model.

With these reassurances, I hope the House will now resolve itself into Committee.

[Lord Sewel]

Part of the difficulty with the Section 30 route, of which I am in favour, is not merely that we do not vote against orders—except very occasionally—but also that we cannot amend them. That is a real difficulty. If there is a Section 30 order agreement but the House is profoundly disturbed about one aspect, it is the nuclear option to vote against it. That is a very uncomfortable position to be in. It would require almost a draft Section 30 Motion so that the House can express a view on the details before being forced to come to a decision, one way or the other, on the whole order.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that a draft Section 30 order exists. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, from his long experience in government, makes an interesting suggestion. The most I can do at the moment is to undertake to reflect on it.

It is not only the responses from the consultation, which will inform much of the content that the United Kingdom Government would wish to see in a Section 30 order, that is of considerable importance today in a debate on the referendum, it is also important to know what issues your Lordships think ought to be included in a Section 30 order. While I do not say that this is a part of the consultation, it is an important part of the process that we have an opportunity, facilitated by amendments tabled by noble Lords, for your Lordships to express views as to what you think should be in the order. I can guarantee that the United Kingdom Government will reflect on those views. I will be very surprised if there is too much difference between our preferences, as expressed in the consultation document.

It is important that noble Lords should take the opportunity today to express their views on what the shape of such a referendum should be and I suggest that we move on to that as soon as possible.

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because I have been asked to answer to your Lordships' House on matters relating to the Wales Office, as indeed I am asked to answer on matters relating to the Scotland Office, although I am not a Scotland Office Minister, and on matters relating to the Attorney-General’s Office as well. It would be unfortunate if it were suggested that the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland was only for Scotland and did not have responsibilities. To answer the noble Lord’s point, I do not exercise any functions as Advocate-General for England because it does not have an Advocate-General.

[Lord Sewel]

Would a way out be to change it to the “Crown Estate Commissioner from Scotland”?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, the Duke of Atholl may not actually have come from Scotland but may have had a lot to contribute. If someone has a bright idea that squares all these circles, I would be interested to hear from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lyell]

The noble and learned Lord is making one point. We have heard a great deal about the limits and the penalties. My noble friend Lord Caithness was driving in Europe and went through three countries. In many countries across the Channel, the limit may be 50 milligrams or thereabouts, but often the penalty is either what I would call a light rap over the knuckles or three months. But if the level is 80 or 100 milligrams, which is what we have, quite often it will be one year or even more. Ever since, I think, 1967, the level has been 80 milligrams and 12 months. If we are going to have lower limits as there are in some Scandinavian countries—in Finland, but not Sweden or Norway so far as I am aware, it is zero; I do not know what the penalties are, whether they fluctuate or vary—would my noble and learned friend the Minister put that into the frame when he comes to respond to this?

[Lord Sewel]

I do not think the real issue in respect of penalties is about proportionality but to do with the type of case we have heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and my noble friend Lord Maxton, of the person living one side of the border who finds himself on the other side and commits what is an offence on that side but not on the other side. The imposition of the penalty then affects him where he is resident—he would lose his licence for the whole of the United Kingdom although he has committed no crime in England. That sort of situation will not enjoy public confidence.

[Lord Cameron of Lochbroom]

As the debate continues, it seems we are missing something. If I think back to my days in the law, we had a book called Road Traffic Offences, which dealt with the whole substance of road traffic law, which included regulations in respect of licensing and also of course the issue of penalties. Here, we are, in part, trying to add on to a United Kingdom Act—the Road Traffic Act 1988 in one case, and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in another—little bits that will apply only to Scotland and which devolve power to make certain changes in the whole structure of road traffic law in that way. As an individual who has to obey the law, I would find it very difficult to find where to go to in order to understand what my obligations are in driving. Leaving aside the issue about licensing and the like raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the United Kingdom licence is a licence to drive anywhere—yet we are asking individuals throughout the United Kingdom to have regard to regulations made by two separate bodies, each with their own responsibilities, which are giving rise to a whole series of different and very difficult questions that have already been brought to mind in this debate. I wonder whether—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

[Lord Sewel]

There is a fundamental difference between comparing the Scotland/England situation with that of Northern Ireland and the Republic. They are different states; that is the important issue. I am still concerned about someone crossing the border committing an offence on one side that is not an offence on the other side but losing their licence on a UK basis.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I give the example of the United States, which is one country where there are different speed limits in different states as you cross them. The noble Lord also mentioned licences. However, the point is that certain things are crimes in Scotland but not necessarily crimes in England. Just because you commit and are found guilty of a crime in Scotland, it is not a defence to say, “Ah, but in England I wouldn’t have committed a crime and, therefore, wouldn’t have been fined or gone to prison”. You must accept the law in the place where you are. If you go out to drink and drive, you should have regard to what the limits are. For the sake of argument, if the limit in Scotland was lower and you knew that you would be driving in Scotland, you should have proper regard to what the law is there.

As someone who was brought up some eight miles from the English border, when I was 18 we certainly knew the difference between the licensing hours in Gretna on the Scottish side and Longtown on the English side. In fact, there was a pub much closer, just across the border on the other side of the A74 from Gretna Green. Local people know what the different laws are on both sides of the border. As I say, if you are drinking and driving you should have proper regard to what the law is in the country in which you are driving.

[Lord Sewel]

Is the Minister’s position that if, as in the case that I cited, a person drives across the border and commits a crime in Scotland that is not a crime in England, it is perfectly understandable that, if the situation allowed, he should lose his licence in Scotland but not in England, where he has done nothing wrong?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, at the moment you could be in a position in which you gain penalty points, which could cumulatively lead to you losing your licence, because you have breached a 20 miles per hour speed limit set by a local authority. Just because a local authority in Hampshire would not necessarily have designated a 20 miles per hour limit for a similar area, that in no way means that the penalty points that you have accumulated for speeding—perhaps outside a school in Lanarkshire—should somehow be discounted. The point is that if the decision made by the Scottish Parliament was that the law should reflect the problem of alcohol abuse in Scotland, it follows that people are aware of the penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

Now, as far as the amendment is concerned—[Laughter.]

[Lord Sewel]

Ten minutes!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

They were my preliminary remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I draw a distinction between the situation with a degree of devolved authority—maybe a little more if this Scotland Bill becomes law—and the position of an independent Scotland. That is a totally different question. I would think it extremely unlikely that a delegation consisting of representatives of the London Government and the Edinburgh Government negotiating in Brussels in a situation of devolution but not independence for Scotland could not work out in advance and in private what was the best line and who would make which point. I do not think it very likely that the representatives from Edinburgh would see it as their task to undercut the United Kingdom interest because that would—while devolution persists—also undercut the Scottish interest.

[Lord Sewel]

One of the difficulties in relation to Europe and getting a common view—almost parity between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers—would be around fisheries policy. The position of the SNP Administration in Scotland is that—and God knows how it can be done; I do not think it can—Scotland would leave the common fisheries policy. That creates a totally different negotiating framework in that policy area from a Government who say, “We are staying in but we have to reform and modify the common fisheries policy”.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, as I attended 108 meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council I must just very briefly intervene. Of course, it was very common in the council that a Minister from the Scottish Office—a Scottish member of the UK Government—led for the United Kingdom. This was quite right, because of the huge fishing interest of Scotland. That was perfectly reasonable. I do not remember any case where there was anything complicated about that.

I should add that some other member states did something quite different. For example, a representative of the regional government in Belgium spoke for Belgium on a number of occasions, and I think on one or two occasions a representative from a German Länd spoke for the German delegation in the council. That was not the British position but the position of two other member states.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)]

I advise the Committee that if Amendment 51A in this group is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 51B due to pre-emption

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 51A, which is in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is absolutely right when he draws our attention to the central constitutional importance of the clause. We are dealing with a fundamental constitutional issue—the power to create taxes, which is a defining characteristic of a sovereign parliament. At the moment, the new Section 80B proposed for the 1998 Act reads:

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

Through this amendment, I want to ensure that any change in the tax powers of the Scottish Parliament will be subject to the scrutiny that you have with the primary legislative process rather than that which applies to secondary legislation. The Order in Council route is totally inadequate to secure the degree of political scrutiny that is appropriate and necessary. The granting of a power to enhance the taxing powers of a devolved parliament is not something that should be done lightly, casually or trivially. It should be done only through the process of primary legislation to ensure the absolute, measured, considered and examined scrutiny of any proposal. The order route is inadequate because we do not amend Orders in Council—this House is, rightly, reluctant to vote down orders and they see a very abbreviated form of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is it not an oddity that this House is not meant to consider taxation at all and yet the Bill provides for this House to approve the order?

[Lord Sewel]

Yes, and also, if we look at the way in which this has developed, I do not know how we come to this order solution. If you go back to 1997, the tax-varying powers then were subject to a separate question in a referendum and were incorporated in the Scotland Act as primary legislation. The Government today are bringing forward a whole series of tax-raising powers to be given to the Scottish Parliament in primary legislation. Why is it suddenly decided that any new taxes that are not specified in the Bill are going not to be subject to primary legislation but only to what I consider to be the absolutely unacceptable method of secondary legislation and Orders in Council?

I mentioned the 1997 referendum, and we know there are amendments standing in the name of some colleagues dealing with the referendum on taxing powers. I am not in favour of a referendum on taxing powers—although I took a referendum Bill through this House, I am not awfully in favour of referendums. My concern is that taxation and the power to create new taxes are of such fundamental constitutional importance that we run a very grave danger if we devalue the standing of that power and use a way of obtaining them that may be convenient for the Government but is wrong. It must be the job of the United Kingdom Parliament to be able to scrutinise any proposals for new or additional taxes in any part of the United Kingdom, through the proper parliamentary process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has just expressed. I cannot see the fundamental point of principle that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can see. He spoke of this procedure proposed in the Bill as not providing the necessary and appropriate degree of scrutiny. The people who would be taxed are the people of Scotland who elect the Scottish Government. I cannot see any particular point of principle in saying that they may not determine the form of their taxation. States in the United States of America have a considerable degree of freedom. Local taxes are different all over the United States. In many cases, they have a balanced budget requirement. The people of Scotland, speaking through their representatives in Scotland, cannot determine the level of the Scottish deficit.

[Lord Sewel]

The argument that the Scottish Executive should have control over the level of taxation is one thing, but the creation of new taxes is a totally different thing.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I cannot really see that distinction. I would be more worried about the level if the level affected the balance of the deficit of the United Kingdom. The levels would have to be adjusted so that the tax take in Scotland remained the same proportionate to expenditure in Scotland. But as for the creation of a new tax, going by a different form, if the Scots chose to lower taxes in form A and raise them in form Y, provided that they came to the same amount and had the same effect on the United Kingdom Exchequer, that seems to me entirely up to them. I cannot see a point of principle there.

[Lord Sewel]

The problem of the deficit is really a red herring, because the deficit would be controlled by borrowing powers.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

If the deficit is not important to the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, what is the answer to mine? It is perfectly possible for the Scots, and reasonable, to decide the form in which they should be taxed.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I agree that the Bill proposes a very eccentric procedure. I was going to go on to say that, first, on practical grounds, I would hope that no one would set up differential tax systems inside the United Kingdom. Secondly, I would not disagree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, against the particular procedure for vestigial approval which is laid down here. My argument is on the point of principle of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Those who should be in the lead on the forms of taxation in Scotland should be the Scots; that seems to me to be clear.

I am disappointed with this bit of the Bill—

[Lord Sewel]

The noble Lord has challenged me on a point of principle. The argument surely must be that macroeconomic policy under the devolution settlement is reserved and, within that, it is absolutely right and proper that the United Kingdom Parliament examines any proposals for new taxation on the basis of how it impinges upon macroeconomic policy, and whether it is fair and would inflict great harm on any part of the economy of the whole United Kingdom.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Yes, that is reasonable. We certainly agree on the macro point. We disagree on whether there is a point of principle about forms of taxation. I would like to pick up on the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about the Prime Minister's speech in Edinburgh. Here, I disagree with the noble Lord, who says that we should proceed to have the referendum as soon as possible, which would give us a couple of years to work out what devo-max means. I do not know why we do not put into this Bill what we think devo-max means, with a sunset clause. I follow the argument that the referendum should have only one question but there is a genuine problem in that the Sir Alec point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, certainly applies in Scotland. People up there do not really believe that the London Government intend, once one has had the referendum and if its answer is no to independence, to confer a further substantial degree of devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

When we get to the Minister’s reply, I think we will find that it is not already in the Bill in the form that I would like. We need to work out exactly how much is needed to fund the planned expenditure of the Scottish Parliament and to look at ways in which that can be funded through taxes raised by the Scottish Parliament. Some people in Scotland, MSPs and others, including Peter Duncan of the Conservative Party, have come out with a scheme that they call devo-plus. I do not agree with it fully but it deserves looking at. It is one of a number of options that should be looked at for funding Scottish expenditure with income from within Scotland.

[Lord Sewel]

Way back in the mists of time, I used to construct a series of social surveys. One of them was a series of questions on the powers of local government. We asked people two sets of questions: the first on which powers were at which tier of local government; and the second on whether local government should have more powers. The initial answer to the latter question was always yes. Then we asked what powers they wanted to see local government have, and about 90 per cent of them were powers that local government already had. That is the problem with the “more powers” argument: it assumes that people are fully aware of the powers that the Parliament already has. I simply do not think that that is the case.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I wish I had not given way; that intervention was not all that helpful to my argument. If the noble Lord, Lord Steel, David Cameron and I can agree on a way forward, there must be some hope that this rainbow coalition will find out what is best for Scotland and for Britain, and will avoid the dangers of separation and of breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the way forward. I have spoken for quite long enough now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Someone had to create the sales tax in the first place. I might be wrong but I do not think that in the United States the creation of a sales tax is a federal function that is then devolved to the states.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

May I just answer this point first, if noble Lords will allow me? I am perfectly willing to try to dredge up examples as I stand here, but it would be pointless. I fundamentally disagree, as does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the difference between creating new taxes and raising taxes is as fundamental as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says it is. There is very little meeting of minds between us in this, but there is no meeting of minds even in relation to that.

[Lord Sewel]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The comparison to the United States is very ill judged. The United States is a federal system. The United Kingdom is a unitary state with devolved Administrations, which is fundamentally different when you talk about sovereignty.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

We have already had the benefit of a very interesting contribution from my noble friend Lord Morgan, which I will read with care, about the Protean nature of sovereignty. I merely responded to the point that I understood my noble friend Lord Sewel to make—that the defining characteristic of sovereignty relates to taxation. He seems to be conceding the point that it does not. I am sure that if we all read what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said this afternoon and perhaps read more extensively what he has probably written on the subject, we will conclude that it does not. I make the point in passing that I do not think taxation is the defining issue of sovereignty.

On the genesis of the power, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked whether it was recommended by Calman. The true answer to that is that it was not, but the power has its roots in the recommendation of the Calman commission, which concluded:

“The Scottish Parliament should be given a power to legislate with the agreement of the UK Parliament to introduce specified new taxes that apply across Scotland”.

I am not entirely sure whether that statement has a sufficient shock effect for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as I think he indicated that he would be surprised if Calman recommended that. However, there can be no doubt that the Bill goes further than this. As I said, the power was not recommended by Calman but it has its roots in the recommendation of the Calman commission.

The Bill goes further than the recommendation, not only prescribing a much wider power for the creation of new Scottish taxes, which is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but allowing for the future devolution of existing UK taxes, as Scottish Financial Enterprise and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, to which I have previously referred, have pointed out. However, there is also no doubt that the breadth of this provision answers a specific call for the further flexible development of the devolution settlement. That is why it is so important to the Bill and of such great significance and cannot be dismissed as a small step. I say that with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. It is a very significant step in the devolution settlement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that it is a pity that this measure has not been accorded due significance in public debates by those who should have known about it.

The significance of the Calman commission’s recommendations as a whole lies in providing a framework for the continued development of devolution in a legitimate and managed way. I support that. However, I argue that if we agree with the principle of greater financial accountability for the Scottish Government—we on these Benches broadly agree with that; I do not think there is much discontent about that on our Benches—the decision over whether additional taxes should be devolved in the future comes down to a decision about the practical impact of such a devolution for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

Thus, this is not in my view an issue of constitutional principle. The issue of constitutional principle is whether we agree to the devolution of taxes, which is what the Bill is specifically about. Thereafter, it is a matter of the practical requirements of such a power. I hope that noble Lords who think they disagree with me will bear with me as I think that I will answer the point that is milling round in their heads about why this argument is deficient. It is for this reason that we have tabled Amendment 51B, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval for draft regulations on the conditions that must be met by any proposed tax for it to be devolved and the specific consultative procedure that must be followed by the Scottish and UK Governments. It has become a habit in this Committee for noble Lords to say that the drafting of measures may be deficient. The drafting of the relevant amendment may indeed be deficient, but this is the best that I could do. If the Committee and the Government are inclined to support it, we can make it much better between now and Report.

I believe that much of the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Sewel and others about the wide-ranging nature of the power in new Section 80A could be allayed if the Government set out in more specific detail the criteria that will be expected of any new candidate for devolution and a clear process by which those criteria will be applied. I regret that we have got this far without that becoming apparent for the reasons that I am about to go into. The big problem is that Parliament is being asked to approve the allocation of a significant and wide-ranging power to the Executive with practically no information about how this will be used in practice and the safeguards that will exist to constrain it.

Indeed, the Select Committee, to which I have already referred, understood this well. It concluded in its report that it was,

“disappointed that, when pressed, the Secretary of State could not give us examples of the type of tax which could potentially be acceptable … We are also concerned by the absence of any clear process or mechanism by which the criteria will be applied”.

In his evidence, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, set out extensive and broad criteria that he said would need to be applied to any tax for it to overcome the hurdles necessary for devolution.

The Select Committee went on to ask the Government,

“to provide a more thorough and detailed explanation of how this process would work, during the passage of the Bill through this House”.

We should bear in mind that the committee is talking about the other place. I commend the report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee more generally to noble Lords. I do not know how many of them have had the opportunity to read it, but I commend it. I particularly commend paragraphs 92 to 96, although I do not intend to read them out at this time of night, and the evidence of the Secretary of State, Michael Moore, because it reveals significantly the basis of a mechanism for dealing with this issue.

Noble Lords should not underestimate the importance of the power provided by Clause 28, and I do not think that they will do so after this debate. It provides a real and tangible mechanism for the continued strengthening of the devolution settlement and the devolution of further powers. In many ways it is the antithesis of the further undefined devolution that has been alluded to by the Prime Minister of late and, indeed, by the First Minister in his flirtation with the concept of devo-max, whatever that might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, again, I will get there in the logical flow of the argument, if my noble friend will permit me. He does not make new points; I have them on board; I will try to address them, but I think we should go through the logical steps of exactly what the construct will be, because this is a critical question. I do not dismiss it.

Why is it so important? The power will enable the whole of an existing tax to be devolved and allows for the creation of a completely new devolved tax. That is clear. It is a power recommended by Calman but which the Government are not in a position to devolve at this time so, to that extent, it is necessary to implement Calman.

[Lord Sewel]

Does the noble Lord accept that there are fundamental differences between using orders and using primary legislation? One of those fundamental differences is that an order cannot be amended. I should have thought that, on the creation of new taxes, it is likely that Parliament might wish to amend such an order when it comes before it.

[Lord Sassoon]

Again, perhaps I may be permitted to go through the complete steps needed to introduce any new tax.

The Government believe that we have a proportionate and appropriate package. We need to take all the measures in the round. In this case, to address the specific question of the role of your Lordships' House—I will not be drawn into taking all the points out of order, but the question of the role of the House of Lords is important—it is because the power addresses the constitutional question of who should be able to set a tax, not the rate of the tax nor the structure. The question of the introduction of the new tax is indeed one in which this House should have a role, which is included in the Bill and the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

If the Scottish Government came forward with new tax proposals, they would have to meet the criteria that I laid out, which would include provisions on the macroeconomic effect. Clear criteria are set out and it would not be sensible for the Scottish Government to come forward with tax proposals that did not meet the criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether the criteria should be enshrined in some way. It strikes an appropriate balance to have them clearly set out in the Command Paper.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords—

[Lord Sassoon]

I will give way in a moment. Perhaps I may try to answer some other questions first. The criteria are clearly set out and it is appropriate—

[Lord Sewel]

On this point, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned on a number of occasions the real politics of the Bill. Following my noble friend Lord McFall, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware of the phrase, “It’s Scotland’s oil”, and of how potent that would be in any debate if the Scottish Government brought forward an oil tax.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am not sure that it is profitable to speculate about what, at some time in the future, a Scottish Government might come forward with. I have set out that there are clear criteria that the UK Government will use to screen proposals. It is very important that the criteria are clear to the Scottish Government—and they are. Secondly—I will give way in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord McFall—it is also appropriate that they are set out, as they are, in a Command Paper, which will give flexibility as circumstances change. The criteria are fundamental and clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, while I am not steeped in as many years of Scottish politics, maybe the benefit of being a bit of an outsider and coming at this with fresh eyes means that I am able to observe a little of the history of this. Notwithstanding the attempt to say that tax proposals have not been brought forward in any way that has had discussion and consensus to date, including the ones that are the subject of this Bill, the history gives me confidence that this is a construct that will work. This is based on what we have seen in the devolution of powers to Scotland to date, and in the process that has led up to where we are with this Bill—which is not perfect and so other critical steps must be gone through. I do not see this obstacle that my noble friend is putting up. However, we will have to agree to differ on that.

[Lord Sewel]

I am grateful to the Minister. In citing the creation of the Scottish variable rate for income tax in the Scotland Act 1998, is not the Minister actually supporting my argument that the creation of new taxes and new powers ought to be through primary legislation?

[Lord Sassoon]

No; the point I made was that it went through this House, as would an order as envisaged here. Any number of points can be made. The principal point I addressed was the question of whether this House would be circumvented in some way by the introduction of a proposal for new taxes for Scotland. The answer is: unequivocally not, whether by an order or by primary legislation.

I would like to move on, because I have now laid out the full process here. It is important to register again the question of accountability, and the importance of the new accountability for the Scottish Government that is given here in the proposal that, for the first time, the Scottish Parliament will have the facility—with the approval of this Parliament—to set new taxes. It means that the Scottish Government will be able to find ways to deliver their desired policy outcomes and potentially raise additional revenue. As well as assisting policy-making in Scotland, the ability to propose tax solutions will itself increase the accountability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, which is of course the main purpose of the Bill.

The measures in Clause 28 will correct an anomalous situation whereby the Scottish Parliament can implement tax policy changes through only what Calman described as the backdoor of local authority taxation. At the moment, only local taxation is devolved to Scotland. Calman noted that the current situation incentivises the Scottish Parliament to achieve its policy aims through local taxes even though they might be more effectively achieved through devolving taxes which are reserved. Again, it is important that we reflect on that point.

Not only that, but introducing makeshift local taxes in lieu of the power to raise them nationally would mean that the UK Government and this Parliament would have no power to intervene even if there were implications for the wider UK tax system. The powers granted here would at least allow for a discussion of new taxes between Holyrood and Westminster that in many cases could result in better outcomes for both Scotland and the wider United Kingdom.

Although I suspect that we may come back to this matter in more detail in later clauses, I want to address in headline terms the question of my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton on whether Scotland will be better off or not. I know that there are questions about what the evidence from the past shows and how much credence should be given to that past analysis. But in simple terms, Scotland will be better off under the proposed arrangement if tax receipts grow faster than public spending than they would under the current block grant system and vice versa. It is not possible to say exactly what the impact will be but the key point is that this Bill delivers accountability to the Scottish Parliament and not a guaranteed financial settlement.

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter and to all those who have welcomed this clause. I join my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Forsyth in saluting Captain Scott and his four fellow adventurers who on 17 January 1912 reached the South Pole. We are all conscious that theirs was a long struggle that ended very sadly, but, nevertheless, 100 years on, we remember the extraordinary feat of those explorers. I also join those who have paid tribute to and saluted my noble friend Lord Forsyth for climbing Mount Vinson last year. We all remember getting the reports and his managing to raise substantial funds both for Marie Curie Cancer Care and Children in Need India.

If the former First Minister knew that he had responsibilities for Antarctica, it is clear that he was not advised on it by his senior law officer, and he certainly did not share the fact with his Deputy First Minister.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the draft Antarctic Bill. It was in the context of preparing for that draft Bill that it became apparent that, while outer space had been reserved, Antarctica had not. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will tell us why that was the case.

[Lord Sewel]

Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that, because of the incompetence of Ministers in 1998, we have had to re-reserve Antarctica, which is now finishing up where it belongs?

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I think that things are moving up the scale, although they are taking some time to do so. We are making a little bit of an impact there now.

I want to make it clear that in moving the amendment I am conscious of the sensitivities in relationships between Westminster and Holyrood, and between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. We have found in many of our discussions that this is a sensitive area in which we have to tread very warily, and I would hesitate to say anything that suggested that the UK Parliament was imposing its will upon the Scottish Parliament.

I say that having been a Member of the Scottish Parliament for four years. A number of noble Lords who have participated in these proceedings have also been MSPs—including the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who was Presiding Officer, the noble Lord, Lords, Lord Selkirk, Lord Watson and others who have participated, and, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the Minister who is to reply. Those of us who have been in Holyrood are aware of those sensitivities and we move with caution.

However, this Parliament has some responsibilities. The action of the United Kingdom Government in imposing very high fees precipitated this issue in the first place. I know that this is one area where the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I might not totally see eye to eye. I am very pleased to see present the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who was a distinguished vice-chancellor of my old university, Edinburgh—not when I was a student, I hasten to add; he is not nearly that old, and neither am I. His experience and deep knowledge of the university sector will be very helpful, and that demonstrates some of the value of this Chamber.

We also have a wider responsibility for the European Convention on Human Rights and the equality legislation, as epitomised in the Equality Act. We therefore have to bear some responsibility for and take some interest in discrimination and equality. What has been not just proposed but agreed by the Scottish Executive and Scottish Government is tremendously unfair discrimination against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who go to Scottish universities. It really is quite disgraceful. It is astonishing, when you think of it, that students from Lisbon, Madrid or Berlin will all get in free to Scottish universities, but students from Belfast, London or Cardiff will have to pay fees.

[Lord Sewel]

Does the noble Lord recognise the supreme irony in the Scottish Government’s position? On the one hand, they are arguing for independence, but the policy they are pursuing can be carried out only while they remain members of the United Kingdom. If they achieved independence within the EU, they would not be able to have this pernicious policy.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble friend, who was a distinguished administrator and academic at the University of Aberdeen—he was vice-principal—has put his finger on one very important matter. In fact, he has taken away a major part of my speech. Never mind about that. It is a massive irony, as my noble friend said, that the Scottish Government are able to impose these discriminatory fees only because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. If Scotland was an independent country, as the SNP wants, that Government would be unable to impose those fees. Students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be in exactly the same position as students from Poland, Germany or wherever in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sewel]

Was the noble Lord as uncomfortable as I was when reading the justification of some leaders of Scottish universities for imposing the highest fees? They used the argument that it was necessary in order to prevent Scottish universities being swamped by English students. I found that deeply uncomfortable.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

I am very uncomfortable with that. On the other hand, there were reasons, which I shall come to now, for the level of fees being set as it is.

The policy of the Scottish Government and the funding council is such that in the period from last year to next year a gap of roughly £40 million will have opened up in the funding of those universities. The University of Edinburgh, much to its credit—as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be pleased to hear—recruits a large number of students from south of the border, and they contribute significantly to the life of that university. That is part of the way in which the university focuses on its United Kingdom, let alone its international, obligations.

With regard to that gap of £40 million, I know it is put about by some that the universities are raiding the coffers of the rich English and that is why they are setting the fees as they are, but that is not the case. A funding gap has been created. I pay tribute to the University of Edinburgh because I believe that at the same time it has put in place the most generous and best scheme for helping students who could not otherwise afford it to come from south of the border. It is a very good scheme which I think could be emulated by others.

Where did this fees level come from? It came from two decisions. One was the coalition Government’s decision to increase the fees to £9,000, although I have to say that they were following the example of their predecessors. This is not an argument about whether there should or should not be fees. I resist the temptation to get into that, although I have strong views on it. That was one element of what created this division. The other is that the Scottish Parliament, through its allocation to the funding council, deliberately created a gap in the funding of Scottish universities—it is in its accounts—of over £50 million. It created that gap and in effect instructed the universities to raise the money from students coming from the rest of the United Kingdom. That being so, there is a dual responsibility here, and it simply illustrates the point made more eloquently by the previous speakers about how we can sometimes set out on a constitutional road that leads not just to unintended consequences but to very unfair and unacceptable consequences as many of us see them.

Students from the rest of the United Kingdom, or RUK—it has a name, which is a sign of how well entrenched it is—will have to live with students whom they know will be paying none of the £36,000 that they are paying. The case has already been given of at least two such universities. It is sometimes suggested that the £36,000 is unnecessary. That is not true. If we are to compete with the best in the United Kingdom, that is the carefully estimated sum of money that has to be put back into the budget of individual universities, and they have set their fees accordingly.

I should mention that I was rather pleased to hear in the Antarctic debate mention of the University of Edinburgh. It has very strong research interests there and I am glad that we are protecting those interests. The only other interest that I could think of Scottish universities having in the Antarctic was if a very strong strain of clever penguins started applying to universities. They would have to decide what fees to charge the penguins, but happily we are unlikely to face that problem.

To summarise, an indefensible gap has arisen. I am not sure that either of these amendments would deal with it completely, but it is time for further thought. Do we want our university community, which shares knowledge and a passion for truth, to be divided within the United Kingdom financially in this extrovert way—a way that will distort human behaviour and the ways in which applications to universities are made? I hope not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sewel]

26B: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Nuclear Power
In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act, under head D4 (nuclear energy) omit—“ExceptionsThe subject-matter of—(a) Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and(b) the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.””

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, I hope that we can get through this in under 12 minutes and break the Foulkes record. Right at the beginning, I will come clean: this is purely a probing amendment, which means we can totally disregard the detail. I can only apologise if some poor civil servant somewhere has spent hours drafting notes on Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. I am sorry, but that was my way of getting the issue on to the agenda.

Quite simply, the issue is my concern whether, at a time when energy security is one of the greatest challenges that we face, we have the appropriate legislative framework to enable the implementation of a strategic British energy policy. It would be totally inadequate to try to deal with the issue of energy security by fragmenting policy so that you have English, Scottish and Welsh energy policies. The task that we face is too great for that sort of small, narrow-minded approach.

Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act reserved virtually all areas of energy policy: electricity, oil and gas, coal and nuclear energy; there are a number of exceptions and they are in the original Act. There has also been a degree of executive devolution since then. The reservation of energy was done quite deliberately in 1998, with the view that strategic energy policy was best devised and implemented at a British level. The point that I want to explore with the Minister is whether we are still capable of implementing a strategic British energy policy. This is where I use the peg of nuclear: we have to take account of the specific contribution that nuclear power can play. We have heard from the Scottish Government that they will not be allowed to build new nuclear power stations in Scotland, and that is a major factor in the debate on energy policy. Is the Minister satisfied that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers have powers which would enable them to prevent the construction of nuclear power stations in Scotland and, if that is the case, is it really possible or credible to think in terms of British energy policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sure the noble Lord is absolutely right. At the core of this—maybe not the right word—at the heart of it is the safety case, which would be determined by the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The noble Lord raised the point, which we will come on to, about other issues leading to issues about planning. It is not only planning because in 1999 there was executive devolution that transferred to Scottish Ministers powers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act with regard to giving permission for power stations in excess of 50 megawatts, and that would include any future nuclear power stations.

I perhaps interpret the concerns to include how that would operate. To be fair, more generally in planning it probably makes sense to have planning powers. In the debate on the then Scotland Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that,

“an Act of the Scottish parliament containing provisions about water pollution from coal-mines or dust from open-cast coal-mining would affect the reserved matter of coal-mining. If the courts were to apply a literal approach, they could hold that these provisions related to the reserved matter and would therefore be beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. This would make a nonsense of the devolution of pollution control”.—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 819.]

There is some good sense that there should be planning considerations.

I should also perhaps draw to the attention of the Committee a decision in the Outer House, Court of Session, last year by Lord McEwan in a petition of Dulce Packard and others for judicial review. He said:

“The best guidance is the Lewis case (the mixed redevelopment at Redcar on Teesside). It is quite clear from the case that the Minister’s position is quite different from someone holding a judicial or quasi judicial office. All the Minister has to do is to consider genuinely the inquiry report and the objections”.

Clearly, we have not yet had any application. But he went on to quote from the Lewis case and the judgment of Lord Justice Rix.

“So the test would be whether there is an appearance of predetermination in the sense of a mind closed to the planning merits of the decision in question”.

It would be wrong to speculate what would happen if any company applied for planning permission and was turned down. It is a high test, which I think Lord McEwan made clear. Nevertheless, he went on to say that the,

“test is applicable, the fair minded and informed observer must be taken to appreciate that predisposition is not predetermination”.

But evidence of predetermination might be relevant.

I had better stop there because one never knows when one might find oneself having to go down that path. In saying this, I hope I can give some assurance that the Government believe that the balance in the Scotland Act is right. As I have indicated, the national policy statement, which was ratified last year, provides for enough sites across the United Kingdom for a sufficient build programme going forward for nuclear sites. With these remarks, I hope the noble Lord feels that he has probed successfully. I am afraid that we have taken twice 12 minutes, but it has been a useful debate and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sewel]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. In reply to a point made earlier, I am not advocating a nuclear power policy for Scotland. I am advocating a British energy policy to deal with the issue of energy security. It cannot be done at the level of the individual component parts of Great Britain. We need to work together to have a policy covering the whole country.

I think that we are very reluctant to go too far on the planning point. But the noble and learned Lord will remember that the vires test in the 1998 Bill that left the House of Commons was not the same as the vires test that became the Act. Let me put it this way: that change was in part as a result of discussions that were very close to the type of discussion that we have had today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sewel]

44A: Clause 20, page 14, line 6, leave out “the agreement of” and insert “having consulted”

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, my mind goes back to consideration of the Scotland Bill in 1998. Some things are the same and some things change. What is the same is that now we are reduced to a relatively small House; what is different is that in 1998 our deliberations were at 2 am—when we used to carry on till that time—and now it is 6.45 pm. Nevertheless, as they say, I am sure that we will be able to make some progress.

The amendment deals with the appointment of what is called the BBC Trust member for Scotland. In olden days it used to be referred to as the “Scottish governor” of the BBC. At the moment the Bill says:

“A Minister of the Crown must not exercise without the agreement of the Scottish Ministers functions relating to selection for a particular appointment”,

and then goes on to explain. My amendment would take out “agreement” and put in “consultation”.

That is partly because of something that happened way back in 1974, when local government in Scotland was reorganised. I remember going to a conference of the good and the great, where the whole discussion was about the relationship between the two tiers of local government in Scotland, the regions and the districts. I remember a very distinguished civil servant at the time saying, “Given good will, the relationship between the two tiers of local government would work very well indeed”, and a grizzled chief town clerk—those were the days when we had town clerks rather than chief executives—saying that in his experience the last thing that you could count on in the relationships between local authorities was the existence of good will.

I am not daring to say that that typifies the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or between Scottish Ministers and UK Ministers, but having an appointment that depends upon the agreement of two Ministers from different Parliaments and maybe of different political hues, as sometimes happens in this House, creates at least the opportunity—I put it no stronger than that—for mischief-making. In other words, it is possible to generate a major row or a clash over something relatively minor, so that what perhaps starts off as an irritant becomes a major issue of principle. Basically, let us avoid that; let us avoid creating a structure that offers that possibility.

By all means let us have consultation. My amendment would mean that the Secretary of State had consultation with Scottish Ministers. To be honest, I would prefer the Scottish Minister to have the decision rather than the Secretary of State, if we got away from the business of agreement. My first position is the Secretary of State and my second position is Scottish Ministers. I just want to avoid the opportunity—the invitation, almost—to create a fuss over something where it should not exist.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

My Lords, there is an important point in what my noble friend says. The Calman commission recommendation was that:

“The responsibility for the appointment of the Scottish member of the BBC Trust should be exercised by Scottish Ministers, subject to the normal public appointments process”.

There is no suggestion there that it would be by anyone other than the Scottish Ministers. Perhaps in addressing my noble friend’s point, the Minister could also address the issue of why there has been a difference of approach in the Bill from that of the Calman commission’s report.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for putting down his amendment as it gives me the opportunity to clarify Her Majesty’s Government’s view on this delicate point.

Clause 20 will make certain that the Secretary of State has to seek the agreement of Scottish Government Ministers in the process of appointing the BBC Trust member for Scotland. Currently, the Scottish Government are involved in the appointment process on an informal basis. The clause will formalise the involvement of Scottish Ministers in the appointment process and gives them the legislative basis to undertake their responsibilities in relation to the appointment process.

Under the terms of the BBC charter, the Trust member for Scotland must be qualified by virtue of his knowledge of the culture, characteristics and affairs of the people in Scotland and his close touch with the opinion of that nation. Therefore, we feel it is preferable that Scottish Ministers should have a significant role in agreeing the appointment. In answer to the noble Lord, it is highly unlikely that the situation would arise in which they would fundamentally disagree over the appointment of a candidate. If Scottish Ministers do not give their agreement to the proposed DCMS appointment of the BBC Trust member for Scotland, they would need to provide justification for that. Both sets of Ministers have the same interest in not wanting to leave the seat empty. The opportunity is primary for a member of a UK body—that is, the BBC Trust. Furthermore, broadcasting remains a reserved matter, something that the Calman report was very clear should remain the case, and we are following that principle. On this basis, the UK Government believe it is important to retain the ultimate responsibility for the appointment.

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State only to consult Scottish Ministers in appointing the BBC Trust member for Scotland, rather than seeking their agreement to the appointment. It is our view that this does not give the Scottish Government sufficient involvement in the appointment process. Securing the agreement of the Scottish Government is the appropriate way of involving them in the appointment process for the BBC Trust member for Scotland. The existing provision gives the Scottish Government an important and appropriate power and the UK Government do not wish to weaken this. I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, this has been a short debate so I do not even have to thank anybody for taking part in it. I think this is one of those occasions where that well known double positive, which is in fact a negative, comes into play with reference to a fundamental disagreement between the two parties, to which the comment is, “Aye, that’ll be right then”. I very much think that there is indeed the possibility for that level of disagreement. I know that this looks likes an enormously trivial matter but I ask the noble Baroness at least to reflect on it because if we do not have a clear focus on where responsibility lies—that is, the relevant decision is taken by one person in consultation with another—I am afraid the Government may live to regret that state of affairs.

Eagle-eyed noble Lords will note that I ought to have tabled a similar amendment to Clause 21, which relates to Gaelic broadcasting. However, I did not do so because I was totally incapable of pronouncing the name of the organisation involved.

Amendment 44A withdrawn.

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I absolutely agree and, although I do not know whether it is intentional, I think that Alex Salmond has deliberately set out to attack the English and blame them for everything. I guess that I will probably not be around if there is ever Scottish independence to see how the nationalists react when they are on their own and there is no one to blame. Yes, he wants to annoy people and we should not fall for that. When the referendum comes, I hope that people in England, Ireland and Wales get a say in some form or another. The case will be made very strongly that those of us who believe in the union and in Scotland certainly do not believe in antagonising the neighbours.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, for a number of reasons, I am not particularly keen for the 1998 Act to be amended, but I will accept it as we progress. However, the important thing is that nothing in the 1998 Act prevents this Parliament legislating in devolved areas. That is stated in the Act itself, but of course to get a proper relationship between the two Parliaments, we formulated what has come to be called the Sewel convention, whereby this Parliament will not normally legislate in a devolved area except with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament—I repeat, not normally. That is the relationship.

The need for a legislative consent Motion, which is founded upon the Sewel convention, was then extended to cover any legislation that affected the powers of Scottish Ministers. I think that that was done without any statement to Parliament. I have never been able to trace, apart from in a Cabinet Office note, how that extension occurred. In some way, that is why we are discussing the need for a legislative consent Motion for the non-referendum part of this Bill. I am attracted to the idea that we split the Bill and deal separately with issues relating to new powers for the Scottish Parliament—which I accept to all intents and purposes come under the requirement for a legislative consent Motion—and the bit about the referendum, because it does not require a legislative consent Motion as a referendum relates to the constitution. The constitution is a matter that is specifically reserved in the 1998 Act to this Parliament. Furthermore, if you read the debates on amendments that Members of the Opposition tabled at that time on the need for a specific reference to an independence referendum, the Secretary of State in the other place and I here made it absolutely clear that by reserving the constitution and everything to do with it, anything anticipatory and ancillary to a referendum is reserved as well.

[Lord Sanderson of Bowden]

Does the noble Lord agree that the time for an enabling Bill, because I think he is going down that route, is in the next Session of Parliament once Scotland has agreed to the consultation document—not our own one but the other one? Surely that is the time for this Parliament to consider and if necessary put through a Bill.

[Lord Sewel]

The noble Lord, as always, makes an interesting and important point. At this stage, I am not prepared to follow him completely, but it is something upon which we may wish to reflect as the debate progresses in our House.

Part of the confusion that we face on the whole business of a referendum, because the debate in Scotland for a long time assumed that it was within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to call a referendum on independence, is because—and we have seen this sort of tactic in a number of areas—the present First Minister has a very good knack of being able to make quite outlandish assertions, and make them so strongly and repeat them so many times that people come to accept their validity without any attempt to find out what the actual position is in reality and in law.

I hope that we progress with this Bill, but we must do so with a great deal of care.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, although I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I am glad that he is not going to press his amendment to a vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, suggested that my noble friend Lord Sanderson was being a bit unkind in using the word “devious” about Mr Salmond, and I take his point. Can I rephrase that and be positive and say that Mr Salmond is successfully manipulative? That is a compliment. I have said repeatedly that members of Her Majesty's Government underestimate him at their peril. He is not known as “smart Alec” for nothing north of the border. I remind the House that in the previous two general elections in Scotland he did not campaign on independence. He did not even campaign under the banner of the Scottish National Party. He campaigned on the basis of, “Alex Salmond for First Minister”. That tells you a great deal about how we have got to where we are. That campaign was very successful and manipulative.

There is another area that we have rather passed over. Before any Bill is introduced, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has to sign legislative competence, both under the Scotland Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. I used to take that matter very seriously indeed, and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will not mind me saying that there were occasions when I told the Executive that they could not expect me to act just as a rubber stamp. My legal advisers would send me back with a red box with perhaps 30 pages of their opinion on whether something was legislatively competent or not.

The referendum Bill, as outlined in Mr Salmond’s consultation paper yesterday, would have to come to the Scottish Parliament. Frankly, if I were Presiding Officer I would not sign a document that said that a referendum was within the competence of the Parliament because I do not believe that it is. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may be correct that the Scottish Parliament can hold an expensive opinion poll, but it certainly cannot hold a referendum, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, just advanced. However, remember what happened after the most recent election. After the first Scottish election, I was elected as the Presiding Officer, and I came from the Liberal Democrats. In the second Parliament, the Presiding Officer, George Reid, came from the Scottish National Party. In the third Parliament, the Presiding Officer, Alex Fergusson, came from the Conservative Party.

On any understanding of common sense and good will, it was the Labour Party's turn to provide the Presiding Officer after the most recent election, but of course Mr Salmond does not do graciousness. He does not do consensus. He had a majority, so a member of the SNP was appointed as Presiding Officer. I make no criticism of her whatever; I think she has behaved perfectly well, but it puts her in an impossible position and has shown again how Mr Salmond's record is one of being successfully manipulative—as did the use of Edinburgh Castle yesterday, to which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred and as does the question in the consultation paper. We were told over the past few days by every newspaper that Mr Salmond was being so kind that he was going to allow the Electoral Commission to be in charge of the referendum, but when we read the paper we find that it is in charge of the administration but not in charge of the question. That, again, has been successfully manipulated.

I just say to the House that we must be extremely careful in all our dealings with the present Scottish Government. The paper published yesterday is run through with the theme of successful manipulation. I think we should proceed with the Bill. I take the view—as, I think, does my party—that it is not strong enough. We want greater devolution to the Scottish Parliament in future, but that is not on the agenda now. This is a Bill produced by consensus, and for that reason we should press ahead with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

[Lord Sewel]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. So far as I can remember, and I may well be wrong, a legislative consent order can be passed at any time up to immediately before the last amendable stage of a Bill in this Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for using the clause stand part debate to allow us to explore and examine what is intended by this clause and, indeed, what is not intended. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lang. I assure him that it was not my intent to try to stop him speaking. I think he knows full well that we genuinely expected the previous debate to be somewhat shorter than was the case. He is absolutely right to say that it was good that we started with a lengthy but very good debate which allowed numerous views to be expressed. It may well facilitate our consideration of these clauses.

This clause transfers to Scottish Ministers certain of the executive functions that are currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State relating to the administration of Scottish Parliament elections. It will enable Scottish Ministers to make general provision by order for the conduct and administration of elections to the Scottish Parliament, the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked me to be more specific about what the powers confer and what continues to be reserved. In the same spirit, my noble friend Lord Lang asked for some reassurances. As I have indicated, the Bill will transfer to Scottish Ministers some of the executive functions that are currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State. There is no corresponding widening of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament although, obviously, it will have a role in approving the subordinate legislation made by Scottish Ministers. So it is executive devolution rather than legislative devolution.

Specifically, Scottish Ministers will be able to make provision by order as to the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections, the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities. This power includes making provision about the supply or otherwise dealing with the electoral register, the combination of Scottish Parliament elections with other elections falling within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament—the most obvious one being local authority elections—as well as the limitation of candidates’ election expenses. However, elements of the powers will remain the function of the Secretary of State: the franchise and the combining of Scottish Parliament polls with polls at other reserved elections. This will ensure that issues of constitutional importance continue to be dealt with by the UK Parliament.

I hope that reassures my noble friend that, because of its constitutional importance, the franchise will be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. He referred to 16 and 17 year-olds being able to vote. Such a situation is purely hypothetical. However, having different franchises for different elections held in a combined poll may not be as anomalous as my noble friend thinks. If a local election were held in a combined poll with a Westminster election, while he and I would have the ability to vote in local elections we would not be allowed to vote in a Westminster election, so you can already have elections which could be combined on the same day with a different franchise applying in each.

As regards the referendum, I remind my noble friend and, indeed, the Committee that the preference expressed by the United Kingdom Government in our consultation paper was that the franchise of the electorate for any referendum on Scottish independence should be that which applies at the Scottish Parliament elections. That same franchise applied at the 1997 referendum. We take the view that, if it was good enough to elect a Scottish Parliament in May last year, it is appropriate for a referendum.

In addition, the Secretary of State will retain the powers to modify the application of Section 7(1) of the Scotland Act, which sets out the modifications to the calculation of the regional figures which are made when a constituency poll is countermanded or abandoned, and to modify Section 8(7), which sets out what happens when the highest regional figure is the regional figure of two or more parties or individual candidates. This is about the election to the Scottish Parliament rather than an administrative part of it. It is about the election itself. That is why we have considered it appropriate to continue the reservation. The Secretary of State will also retain the power to make provision for the return of members of the Parliament otherwise than at an election.

The B3 reservation—that is, elections to the United Kingdom, European and Scottish Parliaments and the franchise at local government elections in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act—will remain unchanged. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether that would lead to the fragmentation which the Gould report raised concerns about with regard to the operation of the 2007 Scottish and local government elections. All responsibilities for the effective conduct of a Scottish Parliament election are being handed over to the Scottish Government. I have indicated the nature of the functions being retained, which relate to the framework under which those elections are run—for example, the franchise and the electoral registration system—or to the reserved elections such as the parliamentary elections. We believe that the difficulties encountered in 2007 were the result of a unique combination of factors that is not expected to arise again.

It is fair to put on record that the 2011 elections were well administered, notwithstanding the fact that it was a combined poll with the AV referendum. That is to the credit of electoral administrators, who are now better co-ordinated through the electoral management board that both the UK and the Scottish Governments support. If one were to change the rules with regard to electoral registration and devolve that, you could then get fragmentation because you could possibly find yourself with different rules for electoral registration for Scottish parliamentary elections and for Westminster elections. I think we are agreed that, although the franchise may be different for each of these elections, it makes sense to have the one canvass subject to the one set of rules for electoral registration.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, in referring to the previous report of the Scottish Parliament, asked about disqualification from membership of the Scottish Parliament. Section 15 of the Scotland Act allows Her Majesty to specify, by Order in Council, various office-holders who are disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament. At present, Scotland Office Ministers are responsible for preparing the draft legislation and presenting it to Her Majesty in Council, but it must first be approved by the Scottish Parliament. Clause 16 has been added in response to the legislative consent Motion in March last year, and will pass responsibility from Scotland Office to the Scottish Government, although the requirement for approval by the Scottish Parliament will remain.

We believe that devolving the elements of responsibility for the administration of elections as I have outlined is consistent with the Calman commission’s principle that these matters should be decided at a level closest to those affected, unless there are good reasons for determining them at a UK level. I have sought to try and make the distinction in respect of constitutional matters and where, in terms of electoral registration, it makes sense to get consistency across the United Kingdom.

[Lord Sewel]

Perhaps I may make one point. I do not want to keep on bringing the debate back to the present First Minister, but he has made clear over the years his animosity and antipathy towards this House. Would it therefore be possible under the arrangements that have been outlined for the Scottish Parliament to disqualify Peers from being Members of the Scottish Parliament? That would be a great shame because a number of Peers have distinguished themselves as MSPs.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, my Lords, that would not be possible, as eligibility matters will remain reserved. I hope that on the basis of what I have indicated—

Scotland: Constitutional Future

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

[Lord Sewel]

As one of those who sat for many hours and nights and days and months—it sometimes felt like years—trying to secure the passage of the original Scotland Bill through your Lordships' House, I welcome this bold Statement by the Government. It is absolutely right; if anything, it is slightly overdue.

On two particular issues, first, can I observe that it is important that there is a time limit to the referendum? It is absolutely vital for the future of Scotland that the matter of independence is settled quickly and clearly without doubt. It is holding back the whole progress of Scotland economically and socially, and that must be resolved.

Secondly, on the franchise, I would have thought that the answer was simple. If you want effectively to replace or modify the Scotland Bill, the franchise ought to be the same as the one that was used to secure the proposals on the referendum in the White Paper at that time.

One great advantage of the Government’s proposal is that it will avoid the dreadful situation and ultimate catastrophe whereby, if the Scottish Parliament played the matter long and it reached a stage where a referendum was about to be called, any individual could take the Parliament to the courts on the basis that the proposal was outwith the vires of the Parliament. That would be a most unsatisfactory situation. It is important to make the vires issue absolutely clear, and I think that the Government are absolutely right in drawing attention to the vires being decided on purpose and effect. That deals with the whole vires issue. If the constitution is reserved, anything to do with constitutional change, because it is purpose and effect, must also be reserved.

I come on to a slightly sensitive issue—

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Lord Sewel]

Does the Minister recognise that one problem is that for too long all the political parties in Scotland have refused to confront the issue and failed to challenge the fact that the present First Minister in Scotland has asserted that this is a function of the Scottish Parliament when clearly it is not?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I certainly am very grateful and appreciate the support and welcome that the noble Lord has given, not least because of the very important role that he played in delivering the Scotland Act 1998 through many sittings in your Lordships' House. He asked about the timing, and clearly one could pray in aid comments from professional bodies, including the CBI Scotland. However, it is almost common sense and self-evident that at a time of otherwise considerable economic turmoil and concern, businesses, which in making investment decisions look to the long term, will factor in questions of uncertainty as to whether Scotland will or will not be part of the United Kingdom and, if not, whether it will have the euro or the pound. Clearly there are uncertainties there, which is why the Government, including a number of my ministerial colleagues, have expressed a view that we would prefer to see this referendum sooner rather than later.

The consultation paper sets out some of those factors and invites comment from people in Scotland as to the timing for the referendum. I hope that not only the United Kingdom Government but the Scottish Government will have regard to those responses.

I will not follow the noble Lord down his final path, because I do not believe that while we are trying to move forward and get a legal, decisive and fair basis for a referendum, and to have a campaign which those of us who firmly believe in Scotland's future in the United Kingdom want to co-ordinate and act on together, it is the moment for criticising parties north of the border.

Scotland Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, here we are again. It seems like only yesterday that we were discussing the Scotland Bill. Over the intervening years, the cast of characters has changed in this Chamber, and I think we can say that it has been enriched, particularly by the noble and learned Lord the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lord McConnell. The one sad bit is that I think we all miss the contributions, which we learnt to love and appreciate, made by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. His is a voice that will not be heard this time around, unfortunately.

I wish the Minister the best of good fortune in guiding the Bill through your Lordships’ House. I make it clear that I broadly support the Bill, although I hope that we do not spend quite as much time in Committee this time as we did in 1998. I thought that I understood the 1999 Act pretty well inside out but it had passed me by that we had devolved Antarctica. Whether it meant that we could send the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on internal exile to Antarctica, I do not know, but at least it is some relief that we have re-reserved it.

There is one thing that I do not understand in the Government’s approach to this legislation. This is undoubtedly a constitutional Bill, as the Minister made clear from the very beginning, so the question arises as to why the Government have sought legislative consent Motions from the Scottish Parliament. The position does not seem to be totally clear because the Secretary of State for Scotland was quoted the other week as saying that the Government would push on with these proposals, even if the Scottish Parliament came out against them. Why have a legislative consent Motion if you are going to do that? Are the Government going to use the “not normally” qualification in the Sewel convention? It would have been a lot better if the Government had said that this is a constitutional Bill and, because of that, it is a reserved matter, although of course the opportunity is there for the Scottish Parliament to express its views and to be involved in the consultation. However, I think that the approach taken by the Government so far is a bit messy.

As many noble Lords have discussed, the Bill has to be set in the wider political context of the debate about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and indeed about the future of the union itself. I do not take the somewhat depressing view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lang. There is almost an element of political unreality in discussing this matter in your Lordships’ House, where all the parties represented support the union—with one personal exception. The party that presently forms the Government of Scotland is committed, hook, line and sinker to the destruction of the union and we have to recognise that in the way that we approach and understand the terms in this Bill.

In 1998—I am sorry to keep on harping on about this—I said on one occasion that I was a devolutionist because I was a unionist. That is still my position. I think that the union is of fundamental importance to us all. The union celebrates diversity rather than imposing a stifling uniformity. Having lived in England, Scotland and Wales, I find that it is that sort of union and diversity, that mixture, that creates something rather special about the United Kingdom. It ought to be nurtured, celebrated and preserved.

Why are we dealing with a Scotland Bill a dozen years or so after the original one? Clearly it is sensible to take stock, to see how things have worked out, and to make some common-sense adjustments. I think that that is absolutely right now that the settlement has had time to work and some shortcomings—the very few shortcomings in the original Act—have been identified. Part of the pressure for additional powers has come from those who have argued that devolution is a process rather than an event. Within the United Kingdom as a whole, I hope that it is a process, but whether they want real regional government in England is up to the English to take forward at some stage. In Scotland those who have argued for the process rather than event case have done a disservice to devolution. Where is the process likely to lead? Is it not almost perverse to set in train a line of thinking that makes a major concession to your principal opponents, who want to destroy the union in the first place?

A major disappointment about political debate in Scotland since devolution has been that very few voices have argued the alternative case, that devolution gives Scotland the best of both worlds: the ability to devise Scottish solutions to Scottish problems set against Scottish priorities, while at the same time ensuring that Scotland enjoys the social and economic security of being part of a larger state, together with the greater political influence that that brings. Nowhere is that more the case than in Scotland’s relationship with the European Union, where, because qualified majority voting is the normal system of EU decision-making, it is infinitely preferable to be part of a large member state with a lot of votes than of a small member state with few votes.

There are a couple of areas in the Bill where the Government ought to have seized the opportunity to clarify things. This is particularly the case with vires, which has been mentioned already. In Schedule 5, nuclear energy, for example, is reserved, apart from two exceptions.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

The noble Lord mentioned qualified majority voting as being the norm, but I am sure that he would agree that an application by an independent Scotland for membership of the European Union, which it would have to make, would need unanimity.

[Lord Sewel]

Treaties do—a treaty change would require unanimity. In terms of the normal day-to-day policy-making of the EU, it is now virtually all qualified majority voting.

Can I get back to nuclear energy? Nuclear energy is essentially reserved, but the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Government—is opposed to it, wanting to use, I suspect, their planning powers to prevent it. The issue is whether the use of the planning powers would pass the purpose test on vires which is in the Act. If there is doubt about that, surely this is the opportunity to make it absolutely clear where responsibility for nuclear energy lies. That is a big issue that we are going to have face up to in this country in the very near future.

The second area—the obvious one—is to do with the calling of a referendum on independence. As the Minister knows, that specific issue was a matter for debate both in the other place and here during the passage of the 1998 Bill. Perhaps I may read two quotations. One follows a question that was asked by the then Mr Michael Ancram of Donald Dewar particularly on this point. The Secretary of State replied:

“It is clear that constitutional change—the political bones of the parliamentary system and any alteration to that system—is a reserved matter. That would obviously include any change or any preparations for change. … If one assumes that that is a way of changing the constitution, no, it is not in the power of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional arrangements ... A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires is itself ultra vires”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/05/98; col. 257.]

Those were the words of Donald Dewar. In this House, the Minister in charge of the Bill was also questioned on this issue. There was a specific amendment put down. In arguing that any act about the continuation of the union would be beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore not lawful, the Minister said:

“Perhaps I may go through the three steps that lead to that conclusion. First, the parliament cannot legislate if the provision relates to a reserved matter. That is Clause 28(2)(c). Secondly, the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter by virtue of paragraph 1(b) of Part I of Schedule 5. Finally, legislation for a referendum on independence would be legislation about whether the Union should be maintained and would therefore relate to the reserved matter of the Union, and so be beyond the competence of the parliament. That is brought in by the purpose test [on vires]”.—[Official Report, 21/07/98; col. 854-55.]

Do the Government still hold to that position or not? If they do not, they must in all fairness, honesty and transparency amend the Bill so that it deals with and faces up to the issue.

On the increase of non-financial powers, which are of mind-blowing importance, I welcome them. There is no fundamental change in them, which is perhaps because the original Act was quite good. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has previously spotted the question of the poor guy who lives in England, drinks in England, but drives through Scotland to get there. At the beginning and the end of the journey, he is perfectly lawful, but for the five miles or so that he drives through Scotland, he is committing a crime. I am sure that this is not beyond the powers of the Government to sort out.

The real substance of this Bill is the financial powers. That is the real guts of the whole thing. I welcome the intent of those clauses. I believe that the one major mistake we made in 1998 was failing to ensure that the Parliament was financially accountable to the people of Scotland. That omission has meant that the crucial political decision of striking a balance between expenditure and taxation has been missing, and that has led to at least a rhetoric of irresponsibility. By giving this power, that is closed off, and I thoroughly support it.

However, I do not believe in fiscal autonomy, not least because devolution provides a structure through which the resources of the whole of the United Kingdom can be redistributed so that more wealthy and prosperous nations and regions of the UK can assist the less wealthy. That, at heart, is the social democratic argument for devolution.

As for the powers of the Scottish Parliament to create new taxes but only with the approval of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may have skipped over when reading the Bill—the issue is how that is going to be done. Will it be done by primary legislation? Will that approval be given by primary legislation, by resolution or by order? That has to be specified in the legislation.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I hesitate to interrupt—I have said too much already tonight—but, just on that point, if we cannot bring ourselves to deal with the vires, does the noble Lord seriously think that we are going to bring ourselves to contradict them if they introduce a new tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sewel]

I think that it would depend on what the tax was. If it was a tax on left-handed people, I would happily vote against it. When it comes to taxation, nothing is ever simple—as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows. It is important to catch the right people and avoid creating the potential for someone finishing up being a territorial taxpayer in two jurisdictions. I am not quite sure that the Bill has that bit right. I remember long and interesting discussions on lorry drivers sleeping in their cabs at night north or south of Gretna and the great importance that that would have on whether they were a taxpayer. How anybody knew whether they were going to sleep north or south of Gretna, I never dared try to find out.

[Lord Lyell]

I have all that debate—it is in vol. 593 —here with me. After I have been able to speak in this debate—perhaps in the morning—the noble Lord might be able to read that in Hansard. However, he is absolutely right. I shall never forget all the efforts that he made—it is all here. Alas, I was before him getting vol. 593.

[Lord Sewel]

I thank the noble Lord very much for that intervention.

Perhaps I may focus on one last thing. The really big difference is now that Scottish public expenditure will be financed by a combination of tax raised in Scotland and grant given to Scotland by the United Kingdom Parliament. Everything about Scottish income tax is defined and specified in the Bill, but the Bill is silent on grant, and that is still going to be the largest source of income for the Scottish Parliament. I think that that is a lopsided arrangement that really is unsustainable. We have got to the stage now where the grant element ought to be defined in legislation as well as the tax element.

I have spoken much too long. I think that this is a good Bill. It builds on the original Bill without fundamentally disturbing it, and I welcome it wholeheartedly. However, I think that we are going to spend quite a bit of time in Committee.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the late Donald Dewar once observed that devolution is not an event but a process. I very much agree with that, and I believe that we should look at this Bill as the second.

[Lord Sewel]

This phrase that it is a process rather than an event is attributed to Donald Dewar. I spent some time trying to trace the source of that comment, but I could not find any occasion when Donald Dewar said it. It was said ad nauseam by the then Secretary of State for Wales, for very good reasons, if you looked at what Welsh devolution was.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

That has lengthened my speech already, before I finished my first half-sentence. Anyway, it was attributed to him, but the point is that it is true, and I regard this Bill as the second stage of the process of devolution, the 1998 Act being the first stage. It may not be the last stage; there may be a third or even, possibly, a fourth stage to come. I do not think we should be frightened of that. The truth is that we are wrestling all the time with the basic problem that we cannot have a proper federal constitution in this country because one component part is larger than the other three put together. That has been the difficulty with which Governments have had to wrestle, so we end up with what I have always called lopsided federalism.

When he opened, the Minister used a quotation from my Donald Dewar lecture in 2003 when I said that no self-respecting Parliament could exist permanently on the basis of a grant from another Parliament. I believe that is true, and although the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was very entertaining, he did not address that problem. This Bill at least attempts to do so. After I said that, people in my own party came to me and said, “You’ve made this pronouncement. We agree with it. Will you now chair a commission to work out what we do about it?”. I was very reluctant to do that because I tried to follow the precedent of Speakers of the House of the Commons and not engage in party-political activity. However, I regarded it as a constitutional issue, and so I said I would chair the commission, provided that there were people other than the usual party enthusiasts appointed to it. I was greatly assisted by my noble friend Lord Vallance, who had then just retired as chairman of British Telecom and is a former director of the Royal Bank of Scotland, and my right honourable friend Chris Huhne, with all his economic expertise.

We came up with what became known as the Steel commission report, which was subsequently the substance of our evidence to the Calman commission. The one difference between the two—this has been commented on by many in the Liberal Democrat ranks—is that our commission recommended a far wider sweep of tax-raising powers than is in this Bill or was recommended by the Calman commission. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put his finger on it when he talked about the possibility of having a wider net of tax-raising powers rather than focusing simply on income tax. The fact is that the Calman commission was the product of a consensus agreement between the three parties taking part in it, and the Bill is the result of a consensus agreement. I have always believed that when it comes to constitutional reform, you cannot expect any one party to dictate how exactly it should proceed. If constitutional reform is going to succeed properly, it has to be on the basis of a broad range of consensus. I therefore find myself in support of the principles of the Bill in its tax-raising powers, although clearly in Committee we can have much more discussion along the lines that we have heard already.

I was very interested in the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the fallout from the remarks by not just the First Minister but also by the Minister of Justice in Scotland about the Supreme Court decision on a human rights case. It seemed to me that they were quite paranoid about the court being in London and would be quite happy for cases to go to Strasbourg, which is a most bizarre position for them to adopt. I was incensed by the language used and the insult to prominent members of the Scottish judiciary who serve on the Supreme Court. I thought it was quite intolerable, and that is why I resigned as an adviser to the First Minister on the ministerial code of conduct. As I said to him in a letter at the time, I did so because if now that they had a majority that was how they were going to behave, there would be more and more complaints against Ministers, and I did not want to spend my time refereeing them. I do not regret that decision. However, the issue that they raised in the debate today was echoed by another Donald Dewar lecturer—namely, Elish Angiolini, the immediate past Lord Advocate—whose lecture I went and listened to. She devoted the latter part of her speech to this issue and clearly was not satisfied that we have yet solved the question of how we treat our engagement with the Humans Rights Act with the new Supreme Court. We should return in Committee to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, and the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, and treat them very seriously. I welcome what they said.

One minor point which I am pleased to see in the Bill, in Clause 4, is about the Presiding Officers in the Scottish Parliament. It is a direct result of the evidence which I gave to the Calman commission. We had the embarrassing situation in 2002 where, despite juggling hospital appointments with the Easter Recess, I had to take two weeks off from the Scottish Parliament for treatment for prostate cancer. My two deputies had a simply terrible time trying to cope with not just chairing the Parliament, because that is only part of the function, but chairing the committees, the Parliamentary Bureau and the corporate body. They had also to entertain the legions of visitors that we had, because the Foreign Office took it into its head to tell every visiting dignitary coming to this country, “You must go to Scotland and see this thing which has come to pass”. We had constantly to give lunches and dinners to visiting people. My two colleagues told me that they were run absolutely ragged during that fortnight. It was intolerable that the Parliament had no power to appoint a third deputy even for a temporary period. I am delighted that that minor flaw has been put right in the Bill before us.

I share the surprise of others who have spoken that the Bill is silent on the question of holding a referendum. Again to be fair to the Government, I point out that the election of the SNP Government in May came subsequently to the Calman commission’s deliberations and the drafting of the Bill. We should be quite open about that. The Bill has come to us; we shall have to deal with it in Committee; and we should look at that question. There is a real danger that Scotland will find itself sleepwalking into independence unless we tackle the matter. As others have said—the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was right—this is quite plainly and clearly a reserved matter for the Westminster Government. It is not a question of the SNP Government saying, “Well, we’re elected, therefore we can have a non-binding referendum which we devise—and we organise, by the way, not the Electoral Commission”. That would be intolerable. We should make it quite clear in this Bill that, granted that the SNP has its majority and a mandate to hold a referendum, ensuring that it is done in a proper way is a matter for this Parliament. The Bill has to come to us late, but we have the responsibility to send it back to the Commons for further deliberation.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked some very pertinent questions of the SNP about what it means by independence, and I hope that we will in due course get answers to them. My heart sinks at the thought that we will have three years of debate and uncertainty about independence or not, with a permanent collective whinge from the Scottish Government that everything that goes well in Scotland is due to their magnificent government and everything that goes wrong is due entirely to Westminster. It is not a situation that we should allow to fester for three years.

The basic question which the SNP has to address is whether people in this country really want a situation where Scots people living and working in London are living and working in a foreign country, and English people living and working in Scotland are living and working in a foreign country. That is what independence means and we should not hesitate to say so.

I also believe that there is a common misunderstanding about the history of how the union came about. It is frequently said, “Oh, well, it was all bribery and corruption that the Scottish Parliament was abolished and people were against the union”. They were not against the union. In 1704, three years before the treaty was signed, Fletcher of Saltoun said that he was in favour of the union,

“to do away with bloody and destructive wars”.

The fact was that there was a perfectly good defence and foreign policy case for the union, just as there was an economic case following the collapse of the Darien scheme and the ridiculous notion that we in Scotland should compete with England in colonial adventures following that disaster.

When there were discussions between the two Parliaments in 1706, although the word “federal” may not have been used—it perhaps did not exist in those days—the discussion was of federal type constitution. When it became clear that the English representatives would not accept that, and that it had to be an incorporating union or nothing, that was the point at which there were riots in the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh. The truth is that the abolition of the Scottish Parliament was never accepted by the Scottish people. We saw that—although there were other factors as well—in 1715, 1745, through the 19th century, through the early part of the 20th century, the campaigns in the Labour Party, the Liberal Home Rule Bills and the covenant campaign of 1950 which attracted millions of signatures. The abolition of the Scottish Parliament was never accepted. The 1998 Act put right something that was done wrong in 1707. But that is a quite different argument from talking about going back to pre-1707 years and having a completely independent state north of the border.

This Bill is simply a fine-tuning of the 1998 provisions. So long as we treat it like that, it should deserve our support and go through to success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. He has had a very distinguished ministerial career in the other place and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing him further from the Dispatch Box, not least in the many hours in Committee that have been clearly flagged up during our deliberations—and quite properly. As I indicated in my opening remarks, a number of contributors to this debate have said that this Bill should be properly scrutinised, as was the original Scotland Bill back in 1998.

I believe that we have had a very well informed, worthwhile debate. Noble Lords have contributed with great passion but with great knowledge, bringing to bear expertise in many different ways, having been informed by their experience of civic life in Scotland and, in the case of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Morgan and Lord Soley, in Wales and England. They have all made a contribution as part of the United Kingdom and Members of this Parliament in the United Kingdom and have brought their experience to bear.

The general tenor has been one of welcome for the Bill, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie described it as a mild measure. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, said that he fundamentally and enthusiastically embraced it. In between those views there has been qualified welcome, and, I think quite properly, people have put down markers as to where they wish to examine these provisions further. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I find it impossible to pick up all the points that have been made. I think there will be time in Committee to develop some of them if I do not get the opportunity this evening.

However, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lang, who saw this Bill as an admission of failure, following on from the failure of the 1998 Act, as he alleged. The findings of the Calman commission, as I think my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas indicated, was that the Scottish Parliament was overwhelmingly judged a success. Clearly some people would not have wished us to go down that road. We do not have a parallel universe so we cannot work out what would have happened if the Labour Government, having come to power in 1997, had said, “We are not actually going to do any of the things that we have done, and we are not going to have a Scottish Parliament”. For my view, I suspect that it would have hastened the day when we would have had an even greater upsurge of the SNP if the promises made prior to 1997 had been broken. We do not know; we have a Parliament in Scotland. As has been said, it is part of the scene. It has been generally supported by the people of Scotland. In the Bill, we have set out to build on the foundations laid and improve our Parliament.

I turn to some of the specific points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose raised the question of the Sewel convention. The passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House may be interesting if we have the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, talking about whether the Sewel convention should apply and in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, discussing whether the Barnett formula should apply. That would be novel.

The devolution guidance note established by the previous Government and adhered to since 1999 has been supported and endorsed by the present Government. It states that legislative consent Motions apply in three cases: where we are legislating on devolved matters; to amend powers of the Scottish Parliament; or to amend the powers of Scottish Ministers. I would be more than happy to make available devolution guidance note 10, which sets all that out. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be more than familiar with the various provisions in the Scotland Act that allow powers to be transferred. In a number of those circumstances, that would have to be approved by the Scottish Parliament as well as by both Houses of this Parliament. Where that is done by other primary legislation, it seems right, and it was thought right in 1999, in the spirit of the convention, that if there is no order—if it is being done by primary legislation—there should be a legislative consent Motion.

[Lord Sewel]

Do I take it from that that if, ultimately, the Scottish Parliament decides that it does not accept the proposals, the Government would not proceed with them?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is a highly hypothetical question. The Scottish Parliament has already approved the proposals by 121 votes to three. It remains to be seen what the committee of the new Parliament will do with any amendments, but the Scottish Parliament has already approved the proposals.

With regard to the specific powers on the boundary between devolved and reserved matters, I know that there has been comment that the Bill does not contain a substantial number of powers. As I said earlier, that is probably a reflection of the fact that the balance struck and judgments made in the initial Scotland Act were basically right, but we should not belittle or minimise the changes being made. They have been well thought through. In the case of Antarctica, there was clearly an oversight, but that is not an academic argument—well, in some respects it is an academic argument because if anyone wishes to undertake research in Antarctica, they require a permit or licence, and I am sure that Scottish academic institutions will wish to do so. It is only right that we ensure that the proper regime is in place for them to do so with certainty.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury asked about air weapons. The question here is not so much about the devolution of the power; some of his points reflected the fact that the Calman commission did not go beyond air weapons because the advantage of having a common system for other firearms throughout Great Britain was well understood. Many of the issues he raised are not so much about the devolution of the power but how the power might be used by the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, we will come back to that in Committee, and I look forward to looking at that in greater detail.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested that we should not get too excited about a change to drink-driving. He might want to note the evidence provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament. It stated that ACPOS welcomes the proposals contained in the Bill relating to drink-drive limits, which it would consider a step towards helping save lives and preventing serious injury on Scotland's roads. That is not a trivial matter at all. It is an important point. If, by exercising the power, the Scottish Parliament is able to pass legislation that would have that positive effect, then we welcome it.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I know that, but I think that the figure that I have seen is 84 per cent. It is recognised that London does not have elections, which is probably all the more cause for those who wish to stimulate participation to ensure that it is particularly well focused in London.

As my noble friend Lord Tyler pointed out, when the question of a threshold was considered in the other place, Members there sent a very clear message indeed, voting by 549 votes to 31 votes against the proposal. I note in particular that Mr Christopher Bryant, speaking from the opposition Front Bench in the other place, said that he did,

“not think that it is appropriate to bring in a threshold”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/10; col. 849.]

His colleagues followed him into the Lobby.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is in his place. During the debate on the 1997 referendum on devolution, he said:

“The threshold, as we have demonstrated, is one of the most dangerous introductions into the democratic process that has been engineered”.—[Official Report, 7/7/97; col. 467.]

I hope that he will confirm that.

[Lord Sewel]

I do confirm that. I also confirm that that was an advisory referendum.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed, and I do not think that that takes away from the point. As the evidence in paragraph 193 of the Lords Constitution Committee report said:

“Despite referendums in the UK being legally advisory, a number of witnesses pointed out that in reality referendums might be judged to be politically binding. Dr Setälä argued that ‘in established democracies, it seems to be very difficult for parliamentarians to vote against the result of an advisory referendum’”.

It might also have been advisory, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, recanting on his vote in 1978 in a debate on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill on 8 April 2003 in this House, referred to the vote after the George Cunningham speech and said:

“The result was a botched referendum in Scotland, which resulted in a "Yes" vote that could not get over the hurdle … We are now in the position where we are following the precedent set in Scotland, in Wales”—

that is, a more recent precedent in Wales—

“in Northern Ireland and in London. It would be absolutely crazy and unfair if we were to change the rules for any proposed regional referendums when we have already held referendums in so many other areas of the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 8/4/03; col. 188-89.]

The noble Lord spoke powerfully on that occasion.

The Bill offers simplicity. Above all, it offers certainty. Every vote will count and will not be distorted by any artificial barrier or threshold. My noble friend Lord Tyler asked the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about abstentions counting in no votes. During our debates last week on postal votes and whether people could vote by post if they had voted in person, it was clear that a number of Members of your Lordships' House were registered in two places. They can exercise only one vote, so the other vote will technically, de facto, count as a no vote. Those who have died since the register was made up will count as a no vote, because nothing here allows the register to be recalibrated to take account of people with votes at second homes or those who have, sadly, passed on. I recall very well that these unfairnesses were highlighted time and again in the 1979 referendum in Scotland.

The certainty of the will of the people should be given effect without further complex procedures or further parliamentary debate or political wrangling, so that when people go to the polls on 5 May, whatever their view on the issue at hand, that view will be heard and given effect to. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.