Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 12, 19, 21 and 24 but if I may address what the Minister has just said, it was helpful that he clarified the position. I suspect it may well have shortened the debate significantly as well. I draw much comfort from the way he said that the consultation will not be about whether to do it but only how to do it. As I understand it, it will be about the details for giving effect to the wish expressed in the amendment, not about going back to first principles on whether one should move ahead. That is very important and I welcome it.

I am slightly puzzled by one point. The Minister explained why he wants a longer period for the consultation process on this amendment than he urged on the same-sex amendment. It seems to me that if one can do it on the same-sex amendment in a certain timeframe, one could also do it on this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister might clarify that. Having said that, I welcome the assurances he gave us and repeat: we are not looking at whether but how to implement. That is crucial.

I want to say one or two things briefly because the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, covered a lot of the points. Over the years, many of us have been lobbied and approached by women from Northern Ireland and, before its referendum, from the Republic who were desperate about the situation in which they found themselves. We heard the most painful stories of women who had to travel alone to Liverpool for an abortion, as they could not do it in the comfort of their own homes. We heard stories of doctors fearful of giving advice because of the criminal law, and the story of a mother who was subject to the law because she had produced abortion pills for her daughter. These are painful stories.

I should say that I am an active member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; indeed, I chair one of its committees. We have been looking at abortion and I wish I could give the House the full details of our report. We produced our committee’s report some time ago. It would normally go to the plenary before being adopted and going into the public domain. However, one DUP member of the committee did not like anything in the report, so we said to him, “Okay, produce an alternative version and we’ll publish it”. That took some time and the result is that although I have our report—in fact, I have his as well—I am not really at liberty to go through it in detail because it is not yet public property. It still has to go before the plenary of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. That is proper, otherwise we would have an interesting report. Of course, that report may well be redundant by the time it is approved if all these measures go through.

However, we still discovered some useful things in producing the report. We talked about the human rights of women and the rights of healthcare professionals. We also talked about whether it should be illegal for doctors to give the advice that they can anywhere else in this country, and so on. I am afraid I am not at liberty to say more, except that we took a lot of evidence. We took evidence in Liverpool, London, Belfast and Dublin, so we got a broad range of opinions on both sides of the argument. I am bound to say that the majority of the committee were persuaded by the strength of the arguments, which are centred on this amendment. This is not something that has just come to me; it is based on a lot of the work that we put into the report, which will see the light of day before too long.

I repeat that I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. I have one point to put to him. Ideally, I would like the timetable for this consultation to be the same as it is for the same-sex marriage consultation. If the Minister can clarify why one is longer than the other, I would be grateful. We look forward to a quick resolution of this terrible dilemma, which faces so many women in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I think the House knows that I was the person who piloted the Abortion Act 1967 through the other place. I begin by thanking the Government, and this Minister in particular, for their readiness to respect the overwhelming vote in the House of Commons recently to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line. I was slightly puzzled by the fact that although the Government made the commitment to put right what they saw as deficiencies in the drafting in the Commons, that has not happened, and we have no government amendments before us today. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is so. I am assuming that we will now go forward and that after the consultation there will be effective introduction of a statutory instrument. Presumably that is what the Government have in mind to change the law in Northern Ireland.

It is worth reminding the House that the 1967 legislation started in 1966, here in the House of Lords. I drew a place in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and picked up the Bill that had already been passed in this House—it was this House that pioneered the legislation, not the House of Commons. Although we made substantial changes to the Bill, it started here and it is worth reminding ourselves of that. I shall quote something that I have quoted very often. Dr John Marks, when he retired as the secretary to the British Medical Association in 1992 after 40 years, said:

“Looking back over these forty years, it seems to me that the event which has had the most beneficial effect on public health during that period was the passage of the Abortion Act”.


That is a remarkable thing for a senior medic to say, but it is a tribute to this House that that happened.

Three things have changed substantially since the 1967 legislation, which I want to draw to the attention of the House. The first is that in 1967, in terms of the European Union, we were the pioneers in legislating for abortion. Other countries had not done it. One outcome was that, immediately after our law was passed, we started to get some traffic from other European countries. People were coming into Britain and Britain was being portrayed as the abortion capital of Europe. The press was full of stories about taxis at Heathrow Airport bringing women here. This was a great embarrassment to the Government at the time and, frankly, an embarrassment to me as the author of the legislation, but that is what happened. What has changed since 1967 is that the rest of Europe has changed its legislation and has in fact gone ahead of the 1967 legislation. Most European countries have based their law on it being a woman’s right to choose up to the 12th or 13th week of pregnancy. That is very different from the Abortion Act 1967.

I want to stress that a very important document that influenced me and a lot of people at the time was the Church of England report Abortion—an Ethical Discussion, by far the best treatise on the morality of abortion that I have ever read. It influenced my own church, the Church of Scotland and the Methodist Church and I think it influenced opinion in European countries as well. Most of their legislation is based on the belief or doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church put forward right up until the late 19th century, which said that the soul entered the body at the time of animation or quickening. That was the fundamental reason that the European countries introduced this law making a distinction between abortion up to the 12th or 13th week of pregnancy and thereafter. It is very different from the Abortion Act 1967, but it is a fundamental change. Now, of course, the latest country to join in is the Republic of Ireland, so Northern Ireland stands out quite distinctly as having no abortion at all compared not just to the rest of the UK but to the rest of Europe.

The second thing that has changed since 1967 is the composition of the House of Commons. It is very difficult for us to remember that back in 1966-67, when we were debating this legislation, there were only a couple of dozen women MPs in the Commons. One of them was the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who was in her place earlier today. She gave great support to the legislation, but there were only a couple of dozen women. Now there are a couple of hundred women, and that is why we have had this overwhelming vote in favour of changing the law in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the women MPs—Stella Creasy, Diana Johnson, Sarah Wollaston and Rupa Huq in particular—who have promoted this cause. It is a fundamental change since 1967.

The third change since 1967, perhaps the most significant, is the fact that in 1967 we were legislating on the only method of abortion, which was surgery. Now, of course, we have the two abortion pills and that has made fundamental difference to how abortion is treated. In Northern Ireland, because of the lack of law, we have had changes in the administration, first in Scotland and then in England and Wales, allowing women from Northern Ireland to come and use the NHS facilities on this side of the Irish Sea. More than 1,000 did so last year but, frankly, this is not satisfactory. We cannot expect every woman who requires or wants to consider an abortion to have the time and the money to travel across the Irish Sea to use facilities in Scotland or England and Wales, but 1,000 have done so. The fact that these pills are available on the internet but, as has been said, at some risk given the state of the law, has led to an appalling situation where people in Northern Ireland can buy the pills on the internet and run the risk of running counter to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, which is the Offences against the Person Act 1861. That is why we are right to consider making this change now.

All the medical bodies support the change, including the Royal College of Obstetricians, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives. In recent weeks we have listened time and again to the fact that the people and politicians of Northern Ireland do not wish to see a statutory trade barrier down the middle of the Irish Sea, and they are surely right about that. However, what we have at the moment is a statutory social barrier down the middle of the Irish Sea, and that is why we are right to remove it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have amendments in this group. I tabled a manuscript amendment, which I think, in light of the Minister’s comments, is probably not necessary. I did it because the sense from the Committee was that Northern Ireland should come into line with the rest of the UK and we should be dealing with a level playing field.

I did it also because the CEDAW recommendations go a little further than the current Abortion Act 1967, in which abortion is limited to up to 23 weeks and six days. After that, there is a requirement to report if an abortion has been undertaken for severe foetal abnormality, reported on the form HSA4, stating the grounds and the diagnosis, because that falls outside the remit of the current Act. I did it with the consultation listed, because I am aware that the medical workforce in Northern Ireland is already in a pretty critical state and anything that jeopardises doctors going into general practice and risks people not remaining in general practice further imperils the overall healthcare of the population there. I hope that people bear that in mind in terms of the time required for consultation.

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for having spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who is not in her place. There has been a lot of discussion about this. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with whom I have also had discussions. It is a credit to all of them that we have been able to have very open discussions about these complex issues.

I had a conversation with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who said that I may quote her today. She has been involved in education programmes to help doctors and midwives understand. She pointed out that they need time, but that attitudes change when people understand how to implement and put the needs of the woman first. She would like the CEDAW changes to come in, because she and her college are in favour of them. However, the House needs to be aware that those changes go further than the current Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, spoke so elegantly just now and on many occasions over the years.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, only a week ago one of the Prime Minister’s close aides told a journalist that he should just wait a minute until we got a deal, then everything would be all right: the pound would rise, and the momentum behind it would persuade wavering Tory MPs to support it with their votes. It has not worked out that way. The pound has fallen and more Ministers have resigned, some campaigning openly to replace the Prime Minister. I was first elected to serve in this Parliament way back in 1965. In all those years I cannot recall a time of greater chaos in Government than we see today. I do not blame the Prime Minister; I actually feel rather sorry for her, although I find her reiteration of the phrase “national interest” rather grating, as she appears to conflate it with her own.

Most sane people regard the prospect of crashing out of the European Union without a deal as devastatingly damaging, which leaves us with this defective deal where we remain substantially under European Union rules at great expense but without any say over the policies, as we shall have left. That does not seem to me an attractive proposition. Until recently, I considered a second referendum to be a forlorn hope, but it now seems to have gathered support, not just because of the march in London, nor the growing number of voices for it, but for another reason not so far mentioned. This month we have seen a remarkable number of ceremonies commemorating the centenary of the end of the First World War. People have seen the German President lay a wreath at our Cenotaph. They have watched the handshake of Macron and Merkel leading France and Germany, and they have therefore been reminded why the nations of Europe decided to form a cohesive alliance. This was never referred to during our referendum when all that seemed to matter was the duplicitous slogan on the side of a bus.

Last month, the Royal and Ancient Burgh of Selkirk —the small town where I live—celebrated 20 years of its twinning with the small German town of Plattling close to the Austrian border. I went for the first time, with about 50 others, and at the official dinner sat with the Bavarian Minister who was representing their Government. Both towns lost men fighting in both wars, but Plattling suffered something we in Selkirk did not—the loss of over 400 civilian lives in one night in an allied bombing raid on its railway station. The Minister pleaded with me that we should not pursue Brexit. Yes, the European Union is not perfect; yes, it needs to be less bureaucratic and more accountable; yes, we made a poor deal on fisheries when we joined. But these are all matters we should stay to sort out and which we cannot alter if we just walk away.

That is why I now believe that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, is right: to escape from the current shambles it is vital that we go for a people’s vote.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said on many occasions, the Government remain emphatic in their support and advocacy of the Belfast agreement. The beating heart of the Belfast agreement is a devolved power-sharing Executive Government, and for that reason the restoration of a devolved power-sharing Executive is our top priority. Much to our regret, and despite our best efforts, there remains no devolved government in Northern Ireland. I believe we all share a common view that this is not good, particularly at this serious and important time. Let there be no doubt: the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve a devolved Government—a sustainable, stable, fully functioning and inclusive devolved Government.

I would much rather not be here—I suspect that many of your Lordships might share that sentiment—and that the Bill was not necessary. However, for reasons we have discussed before, sadly it is. As a Government we remain committed to taking those decisions necessary to provide good governance and political stability for Northern Ireland. This package of measures is a key staging post toward restoring a devolved power-sharing Executive and Assembly.

I do not doubt that the debate that follows will be wide-ranging. However, I shall state at the outset what the Bill seeks to achieve. The purpose is threefold. First, it will create a time-bound period for the intensive talks necessary to create an Executive. Secondly, it will ensure the functioning of the Northern Ireland departments during that period. Let me be clear that the Bill does not give the Northern Ireland departments new powers. Instead, it provides clarity on the exercise of existing powers in the absence of Ministers, and will be underpinned by guidance that will help Northern Ireland departments judge whether those powers should be used in the absence of Ministers. Finally, it will seek to ensure that key public appointments are made.

I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House, and I put on record both my appreciation and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for their hard work in scrutinising and publishing the reports on the Bill so very quickly. We accept the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation that the power enabling the Secretary of State to add offices to the table in Clause 5(2) should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Constitution Committee raised concerns about that procedure and the fast-tracking of the legislation. We agree that this should not become the norm and that it should not be considered to set a precedent.

On the specifics of the Bill, first, it extends the period provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for Northern Ireland Ministers to be appointed before the local elections in 2019. As your Lordships will be aware, because Ministers were not appointed by 29 June 2017, the 1998 Act requires a further election before an Executive can be formed. As set out in my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s Statement of 6 September, an election at this time would neither be helpful nor improve the prospect of restoring the Executive. From our engagement with Northern Ireland parties, we believe that this view is widely shared. Nor is the prospect of direct rule an attractive one. The provisions of Clause 1 seek to create a period in which an Executive can be formed and talks can take place, by removing that current legal impediment to an Executive being formed for a defined period.

The Bill also provides, in Clause 2, that this defined period may be extended once, for up to five months, removing the need for further primary legislation in the event that, for example, a short extension is judged necessary to finalise an agreement and form an Executive. I assure noble Lords that we will not be waiting until March to bring the Northern Ireland parties together. Following the passage of this legislation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to meet party leaders to discuss the basis, process and timing for further talks. My right honourable friend will also welcome all efforts to improve and enhance the political dialogue between the parties in Northern Ireland—including Church leaders and Members of this House—to discuss how best to encourage meaningful political engagement towards the restoration of an Executive.

With regard to decision-making, during this period, in light of recent court judgments, Northern Ireland departments require certainty and clarity. Their decision-making powers in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers have come under close scrutiny. The Bill makes clear that a senior officer of a Northern Ireland department may exercise departmental functions in the absence of Ministers during the period for forming an Executive, if the officer is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The Bill also requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the exercise of departmental functions during this period, including the principles to which senior officers in Northern Ireland departments must have regard when deciding whether to exercise a decision-making function. A draft copy of this guidance has been published and placed in the Library of the House.

The Bill stipulates that the Secretary of State must have regard to representations from Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly before publishing the guidance. Similarly, my right honourable friend would have regard to such representations should the need for revised guidance arise. We would also welcome representations from UK parliamentarians as well as MLAs on its content before a final version is published, something the Secretary of State intends to do shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The principle established by this Government’s interventions over the past year is that we will legislate where doing so is necessary to protect the delivery of public services and uphold public confidence in Northern Ireland. But let me be clear, while the NICS needs certainty in respect of decision-making powers, these measures do not set or change policy direction on devolved issues in Northern Ireland. That is for a restored Executive and Assembly.

The principles underpinning decision-making are set out in guidance rather than on the face of the Bill, as Northern Ireland departments need a degree of flexibility and discretion to enable them to reach appropriate and necessary decisions and ensure the continued delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. We have engaged closely with the NICS during the development of the draft guidance. The factual information provided by it has informed the approach we have taken.

This Government also recognise that, in the absence of an Executive, there will be some decisions that we, the UK Government, should take, such as setting out departmental budget allocations for approval by Parliament to ensure that public services continue to function.

Noble Lords will be aware of some new elements to the Bill since it has arrived in our House. There was a series of amendments to Clause 4. To be very clear, the clause requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Northern Ireland departments on how to exercise their functions in relation to Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and Article 13(1)(e) of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and wider human rights. The Secretary of State would also be required to report guidance under this clause on a quarterly basis to the other place, and set out her plans to address the impact of the absence of Ministers on human rights obligations in Northern Ireland within three months of the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will recognise that Clause 4, which was inserted in the Bill in the other place, is quite modest in its objectives. During the Brexit negotiations we have been told we cannot have a line down the middle of the Irish Sea affecting trade differently in one part of the United Kingdom from the other. Yet we have a line down the middle of the Irish Sea, affecting the human rights of one part of the United Kingdom, compared with the rights of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court in particular, in relation to abortion, said recently,

“the present legislative position in Northern Ireland is untenable and intrinsically disproportionate … the present law clearly needs radical reconsideration”.

What are the Government going to do about that?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to expand on that later. However, in response to him directly on this issue, the Supreme Court judgment to which he refers was based on an absence of standing, which therefore created another technical issue—it was technical only, but it is important to stress that. We already have lines around our United Kingdom, because they are lines of devolution as well. The devolved settlements are important and have a role to play in this. I do not doubt that we will expand on that as certain amendments are discussed later today. However, I of course recognise the point that the noble Lord has raised and will report on it directly in due course, but perhaps he will allow me to continue.

The important aspect here is that, as the honourable Member who drafted the amendment has acknowledged, the new clause does not alter the law in Northern Ireland. This was not a clause that the Government sought but its inclusion was clearly the will of elected Members of the other place. I appreciate the sensitivities around the issues that the clause addresses. Abortion law and same-sex marriage have previously been subject to debate in this House and indeed in the Northern Ireland Assembly. As your Lordships know, these issues are devolved and should, rightly, be determined by an incoming Assembly. However, as I stated, the new clause does not change the law in respect of the wider legal framework in respect of either.

Finally, the Bill contains provisions to address the urgent need for key appointments to be made in Northern Ireland and to certain UK government-sponsored bodies where those appointments would normally require the involvement of Northern Ireland Ministers. Clauses 5 to 7 ensure that key posts can be filled while minimising the extent of UK government intervention in what are, rightly, devolved matters. Clause 5 would allow the relevant UK Minister to make certain specified appointments, exercising the appointments functions already conferred on Northern Ireland Ministers. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in her Written Statement on 18 July, these posts are the most pressing and urgent appointments, as they are essential to the maintenance of good governance and public confidence in Northern Ireland. They include the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Bill takes this focused approach rather than conferring a blanket power on the Secretary of State.

It is also important that we provide for other vital offices which might unexpectedly become vacant. For this reason, the Bill includes provision to add to the list of offices by means of a statutory instrument allowing the relevant UK Minister to exercise Northern Ireland Ministers’ appointment functions in relation to additional specified offices. This power would be used only if the appointments were urgent and necessary, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would of course consult the main Northern Ireland political parties before bringing forward regulations.

A large proportion of appointment functions in Northern Ireland are conferred on Northern Ireland departments. The provisions that I outlined earlier dealing with departments’ decision-making powers would provide the necessary clarity to allow the Northern Ireland departments to be able to exercise those appointment functions conferred on them during the formation of the Executive. It does not transfer to them any appointment functions currently conferred on Northern Ireland Ministers.

The lack of an Executive has also affected appointments to UK-wide bodies, as a small number of these require Northern Ireland Ministers to be consulted or to agree an appointment made by a UK Minister. The most pressing example is the appointment by the Home Secretary of a new chair of the Disclosure and Barring Service. Similarly, joint appointments are made by UK and Northern Ireland Ministers. The Bill addresses such appointments by allowing them to be made in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers but it retains the Northern Ireland input by requiring the UK Minister to consult the relevant Northern Ireland department. The powers given to UK Ministers under Clauses 5 to 7 would expire when Northern Ireland Ministers were appointed and an Executive formed.

The people of Northern Ireland deserve strong, locally elected, accountable individuals sitting in an Assembly, and they deserve a functioning, sustainable devolved Government. Achieving that is our priority, and we continue to be focused on achieving it. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Report: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

Reference has been made to the comments of the First Minister on Scottish Tories. I am a lifetime citizen of Scotland, our home has always been there and, as your Lordships know, my legal training, like that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was in the Scottish system. We regard ourselves—certainly I regard myself and I am sure it is the same for my noble and learned friend—as loyal citizens of Scotland and to suggest that we want to destroy devolution is, I think, slightly less than fully true. When I was Lord Chancellor, Sir John Major, as he is now, was Prime Minister and he said he did not want the Lord Chancellor to be involved in the nitty-gritty of party politics. I have tried to follow that ever since and I have never taken any part, recently, in public Scottish politics.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, as many Scottish colleagues in the House are aware, over the last year or so my attendance in this place has been spasmodic and uncertain. I am sorry that I have not been able to make any contribution to this very important Bill until now, but I want to make two points, even at this late stage. The first is that it is the second time in 50 years that the country has had to ponder whether to remain part of the European entity. My mind goes back to 1975 when I was appointed to the committee of the Britain in Europe campaign, headed by Roy Jenkins and Willie Whitelaw. I was very much the junior member, the statutory Liberal stuck on this committee of the great and the good, but it was an amazing experience. We had huge public meetings. I remember one, in particular, in Edinburgh at the Usher Hall, where we must have had 2,000 people. I was simply the warm-up man for the great people who were going to speak; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Roy Jenkins. The end result was absolutely decisive, unlike this last occasion in 2016. It was two-thirds to one-third in favour of remaining in the then European Economic Community.

Some will argue that we had it easy in those days because there was no Assembly in Wales; Northern Ireland, then as now, was under direct rule; and there was no Parliament in Scotland, so it was a fairly simple, straightforward argument. But I thought then, as I think now, that the whole history of this country in relation to Europe has been one of running after the European bus after it has left the stop. I am very proud of the fact that I belong to a political party that, under the inspiration of my great predecessor, Jo Grimond, in 1955 divided the House of Commons on the issue of whether to take part in the Messina talks. They only got a handful of people in the Lobby on one side against the massed ranks of the Labour and Conservative Parties in the other, but they were right and ever since then we have been running to catch the European bus and we have never got near the driving seat. We were simply passengers going in the direction that it happened to be going.

At least in 1975 we were talking about the future of Europe and the kind of country we wanted to be in Europe, which was not the case in the 2016 referendum, when people were arguing about slogans on the side of a bus, money for the National Health Service, immigration and other issues which were not directly related to the kind of country that we wanted to see. One of the extraordinary results of the 2016 referendum was that the over-65s voted clearly to leave and that is a terrible condemnation of the way that the referendum was run, not just by the Brexiteers but by the remainers. It was not run by professional politicians, unlike in 1975, and the result was that people operated on slogans rather than dealing with the real issues. That is my first point.

Now we are in the reverse position of trying to get off the moving bus. People who try to get off moving buses sometimes have accidents and I think Clause 11 was a major accident, which has now been put right. This is my second point. When the Bill was first published, Clause 11 was greeted in Scotland with total incredulity right across the political spectrum. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, put it very well at the time, that it was as though the drafters of the Bill simply had not realised what had happened in 1998 with the Scotland Act. They assumed that powers from Europe would automatically come to London and that the Government in London would graciously consider whether at some future point they might transfer some of those powers to Edinburgh. That was not just wrong, it was totally the opposite of what the Scotland Act 1998 said: that when powers that were covered for Scotland by the EU were returned, they would go automatically to Edinburgh, not to London. I think the Government got it completely wrong.

Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild Fisheries) Order 2017

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the order. As we have heard, it would provide legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament to bring forward provisions on specific taxes relating to wild fisheries in Scotland.

The order will amend Part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998 to provide that taxes on specified persons to fund expenditure on the conservation of freshwater fish and their habitats, and the management or regulation of wild fisheries, are to be devolved taxes. The Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of wild fisheries in 2014 to consider how this magnificent Scottish resource can be protected and managed sustainably into the future.

The order will allow for an intended wild fisheries Bill to be brought before the Scottish Parliament to include powers for the Scottish Government to raise levies on the owners, occupiers or users of wild fisheries if they deem it necessary in the future. These provisions have been approved by HM Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and members of the cross-party Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We are content to support the order so that these issues can be scrutinised fully in the Scottish Parliament.

I ask the Minister: what consultation are his Government undertaking with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the package of reforms undertaken on these natural resources in Scotland either do not materially affect or are beneficial to wider conservation and natural planning efforts across the whole of the UK? We hope that the Scottish Government will work with members of all parties in Scotland to ensure a sustainable future for these natural resources and for communities right across Scotland.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I suppose I should begin, like everybody else, by sucking up to the Deputy Chairman and the Minister and saying how pleasant it is to be here with them. I do not remember this ever happening in this Room before, but the House of Lords exists to be pleasant and I am delighted to join in welcoming them here. In fact, a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made a quite gratuitous and kindly reference to me, no doubt anticipating that I might give him support if there were a vote. In fact, I would not have done, but nevertheless the atmosphere of pleasantry is something I am happy to continue.

I have a purely personal interest in this matter, in that I fish occasionally on the Tweed and more regularly on a loch in the Scottish Borders, which I will return to in a moment. I think the Minister will agree that this order is somewhat unusual in that it is predicated on a Scottish Parliament Bill that we have not yet seen. That makes it a little difficult to understand but none the less, in principle, we will support it. That is presumably why the Sewel convention does not apply in this case, because it is bestowing more powers on the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act. Like the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I would like to hear a little more about the consultation that the Minister has had with colleagues in the Scottish Government about how this is going to operate.

I have two questions about the order. The first relates to the amendment of Chapter 7 of the Scotland Act, on page 2 of the order. It states:

“This subsection applies to taxes on the … occupiers ... of the right to fish in wild fisheries”.


I operate a syndicate on a loch in the Scottish Borders. One of the members of the syndicate is the former sheriff, who will certainly be breathing down my neck if we do not get this right. Does that mean that when I pay, as I do, a handsome sum to His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch for the right to fish on his loch, that makes me an occupier of the right to fish in the waters? In other words, am I, in supporting this order, liable to find myself subject to taxation in future?

My second question is one that I anticipate my noble friend Lord Beith is about to ask. Fisheries in Scotland are governed under legislation that was passed way back in the 1950s. In the case of the Tweed, Scottish legislation covers the south bank; in other words, people operating in England are subject to Scots law in this peculiar circumstance. I wonder whether this order applies to them as well.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend did not realise quite how far the provision he has just cited extends. Legislation, particularly the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006, embraces the whole of the Tweed district, which includes all the tributaries of the Tweed and tributaries of the rivers which are tributaries of the Tweed, whether they are in England or Scotland. Of course, many of them are in England, such as the Till, for example. The Tweed river system has always been managed as a single system, which makes a great deal of sense. It would be odd to do it otherwise.

However, there are some problems inherent in this, as there were in the 2006 order. The Minister said that the Bill will not affect other parts of the United Kingdom—I hope I am not quoting him wrongly. If that is the case, it will be an interesting reversion to the previous way of legislating in this area. My initial assumption was that this order might affect all the tributaries of the Tweed. The basic question is: can somebody have a fine or levy placed upon them by the Scottish Government when they are not only resident in England but the activity to which the levy relates is wholly in England? Can someone who is the owner or occupier of a fishing right on, say, the Till, be required to pay a levy by the Scottish Government?

There may be a perfectly good case for them being required to pay that levy, but if there is, that surely should be a decision on which the United Kingdom Parliament—the only Parliament which represents England—should continue to have a say in future. It seems constitutionally repugnant for the Scottish Parliament to be able to pass laws or impose levies in England, just as it would be repugnant now under devolution to do the reverse in this area. That is what I would like clarification on as I think something of a wrong turning was taken in the 2006 order, and I do not want to see it repeated in subsequent orders, such as the one we are considering today.

Scotland Act 2016

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to co-ordinate the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016 with the Scottish Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

The joint ministerial working group on welfare and the Joint Exchequer Committee will oversee the implementation of welfare and tax powers, and a cross-Whitehall programme board has been established to oversee implementation of the Scotland Act. Senior officials from the Scottish and UK Governments meet regularly to identify and resolve issues and, building on the successful implementation of the 2012 Act, I am confident that both Governments will work constructively together to implement these historic new powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, is he aware that in last week’s debate on HS2 only one Peer—my noble friend Lord Glasgow—spoke of the need to extend that line as far as Scotland, and that the same week the First Minister of Scotland announced a feasibility study to extend the successful Borders Railway further south? What, then, are the chances of the two Governments working together to make sure that Scotland gets a modern railway system?

[Lord Dunlop]

In all issues the two Governments will seek to work constructively. There was a specific review to see how passengers who travelled to Scotland could get the benefits of HS2—that is an example of how the two Governments have been working together.

Scotland Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments. We particularly welcome those relating to pavement parking and recognise that the others are largely technical in nature. We are therefore more than happy to support them.

The amendments on pavement parking reflect amendments which this side of the House tabled both in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House and which were welcomed honourably by the Minister. The work of the organisations, Living Streets and Guide Dogs Scotland, was invaluable and I extend my thanks to them.

I know that in the grand scheme of things the amendments might be regarded as minor, but they are important to a big section of our community. Pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians, especially people with sight loss, parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users and other disabled people. People with sight loss are particularly affected, as they can be forced into oncoming traffic which they cannot see. A survey by Guide Dogs Scotland showed that 97% of blind or partially sighted people encounter problems with street obstructions and some 90% of them had experienced trouble with a pavement-parked car. Pavements are not designed to take the weight of vehicles, and cars cause paving to crack and tarmac to subside. This damage makes pavements uneven, creating a trip hazard for pedestrians, particularly blind and partially sighted people. I know that the cost of repairing pavements is a parochial issue, but it is a burden for local authorities, which in Scotland are under particular pressure as a result of government cuts—SNP Government cuts, I hasten to add. We are therefore glad that the Scottish Government now have the necessary legislative competence to put measures in place to prevent this happening. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and welcome the amendments.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, before the Minister responds perhaps I could repeat a point I made in Committee about Clauses 40 to 42 and Schedule 2, and the amendments that the Minister has rightly laid before us today. I am emboldened to do so by a phone call from the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is a former constituent of mine. He wanted me to make it clear that there was never any risk of him voting for me, but on this issue we speak with one voice.

Those of us who live in the borders, whether on the Scottish or the English side, are naturally concerned about the growth of what appear to be quite minor changes in legislation concerning parking, traffic signs, speed limits, vehicle regulations and even the drink-driving laws. There is a danger that these regulations will become self-aggrandising. We have different regulations just for the sake of having different regulations. We find ourselves having to make journeys by road that cover both jurisdictions, and it is extremely confusing if there are too many regulations that differ. The point I want to put to the Minister is this. He referred several times to discussions between the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government. Can we be assured that those discussions will continue so that we can seek to minimise the differences in regulations on each side of the border?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his comments and support. This was an issue that the party opposite raised in Committee and the Government are pleased to have been able to address what has been a long-standing lack of clarity in the law. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, yes of course I can assure him that discussions will continue between the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government. A theme that has run through all our debates on this Bill is the need for close intergovernmental co-operation. That is something which I feel strongly about, given my responsibility for these matters, so anything I can do to improve those intergovernmental relations, I will certainly do.

Before we move to the final group of amendments, as we near the conclusion of the Bill I want to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for all their work, in particular all those who have moved amendments or spoken to them, and who have taken the time to meet me and my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General to discuss their concerns. I would also like to thank the Constitution Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for their very careful consideration of this Bill. Indeed, I thank my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General, who is no longer in his place because no doubt he is preparing for the Immigration Bill to come, and my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie for all their support. Finally, I thank officials from across Whitehall who have provided invaluable support throughout the process. We have covered a lot of ground and many subjects, and their support is much appreciated.

Noble Lords have provided robust challenges at times; I recognise that opinions have been divided on aspects of the Bill and I respect the strong views that are sincerely held. Your Lordships’ House has fulfilled its customary role of providing a thorough and penetrating scrutiny of the legislation. I said at Second Reading that I thought it was a precondition of earning the trust of the Scottish people, after the independence referendum, that we should keep the promises that were made during that referendum. That is exactly what this Bill does, as well as making the Scottish Parliament more financially accountable. I am particularly grateful to the Front Benches opposite for their support. It recognises that the promises made during the referendum were joint ones.

There was much talk during the independence referendum of Project Fear, and I think that it has already been observed elsewhere that the fears raised by the supporters of the union have proved all too justified while the fears put about by those arguing for separation have proved to be groundless. They have proved to be groundless because we have delivered on the promises we have made. I think that we have established beyond any doubt that pulling Scotland out of the United Kingdom could never satisfy the Smith no-detriment principle, and in its heart of hearts I suspect that the leadership of the SNP knows it.

Political discourse in Scotland is already changing as a result of the Bill. Now we must move the debate on from what the powers are to how they are used. I am confident that the new Scotland Act will prove an enduring settlement, strengthening Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dunlop]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment, but the passing of this Act by the House today is a major step in the history of Scotland. Donald Dewar was fond of repeating that devolution was not an event but a process, and so it has proved to be—and I have no doubt will continue to prove to be. This Act completes a process begun correctly in the original Scotland Act 1998. However, as I said at the time, that Act created a Parliament with substantial powers over expenditure but no responsibility for raising any of the money that it spent. This change is therefore of major significance and brings us closer to a quasi-federal relationship in Britain—closer in fact to the ideas in the Solemn League and Covenant way back in 1643.

In his magisterial new book Independence or Union, Professor Tom Devine says that his own preferred choice in the referendum,

“would have been to support a more powerful Scottish Parliament via some form of enhanced devolution. That opinion was in the end not available in the wording of the referendum. Many of those who thought like me were effectively disenfranchised”.

That is what we have delivered and I believe that it now accords with the views of the majority of Scots, recognising as they do that we had a lucky escape in the referendum following the collapse of the global oil price.

That is nothing new. We have always been interdependent in these countries. One of our greatest Secretaries of State, Tom Johnston, put it thus during the great depression:

“What purpose would there be in our getting a Scottish parliament in Edinburgh if it has to administer an emigration system, a glorified poor law and a desert?”.

We needed the strength of the United Kingdom then and we need it now. This Act creates an obligation and indeed an expectation that our two Governments will act together in the best interests of our people. That means that Ministers such as George Osborne need to abandon silly anti-nationalist rhetoric when dealing seriously with annual budgets and that the SNP need to stop blaming London for every one of its own shortcomings. Scottish people expect better than that and this Act provides a sensible foundation for the way forward.

I have one final thought. We in this House have been able to adjust and improve the Bill since it left the Commons. We have had to do that without the assistance of the SNP, which continues its absence from this institution. I hope that that may change, not least so that it can join in the efforts to reform this Chamber and make it even more of a sounding board for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Scotland Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 53 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McAvoy. At present, the Scottish Parliament has control over much of road safety. Indeed, the Smith commission recommended the following:

“Remaining powers to change speed limits will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Powers over all road traffic signs in Scotland will also be devolved”.

Clauses 39 and 40 reflect that recommendation by devolving full powers over the making of road signs and speed limits. However, as third sector organisations and Members in the other place have made clear, the Scottish Parliament does not have legislative competence over pavement parking. Amendment 53 would rectify this anomaly. The intended result is that parking offences such as parking on pavements, or by dropped kerbs, and double parking can be enforced by the Scottish Parliament.

At first blush, this may seem a somewhat picayune topic. However, I am grateful to both Mr Joe Irvin, on behalf of Living Streets Scotland, and the organisation Guide Dogs Scotland for their briefing, which demonstrates that this is a matter of significance. Pavement parking can be dangerous for pedestrians, especially people with sight loss, parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users and other disabled people. People with sight loss are particularly affected, as they can be forced into oncoming traffic which they cannot see. A survey by Guide Dogs Scotland showed that 97% of blind or partially sighted people encounter problems with street obstructions, and 90% of those experience trouble with vehicles parked on pavements. Pavements are not designed to take the weight of vehicles, and cars cause paving to crack and the tarmac to subside. This damage makes pavements uneven, creating a trip hazard for pedestrians, particularly the blind and partially sighted.

The cost of repairing pavements is, of course, a burden for local authorities. In London, there has been a general prohibition on pavement parking since 1974. Local authorities are responsible for civil parking enforcement and they have powers to make exceptions on a street-by-street basis. As my honourable friend the Member for Edinburgh South has said:

“Legislation to harmonise the law on pavement parking would mean that there is one law for everyone and would send a clear message that putting pedestrians in danger is not acceptable. Parking on the footway should only be permitted where a local authority determines that it is both necessary and safe to do so”.

I trust that this point, at least, resonates with the Government’s ambition to give local authorities greater autonomy over their own affairs. The amendment would allow parking legislation to proceed in the Scottish Parliament and enable local authorities and police to manage the streets more as communities wish.

Responding to a debate on this issue in the other place last month, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport stated that,

“it would not be without new cost burdens for local authorities. They would have to remove any existing local prohibitions, taking down signage, and then review every road in their areas to establish where limited footway parking should still be allowed, to avoid congestion, before going through the process of passing resolutions, putting down road markings, and erecting appropriate signage”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/15; col. 659.]

However, these concerns do not take into account the savings that would be made in maintenance costs for local authorities which, as we know, have to spend millions of pounds a year on repairing cracked pavements which have been damaged by vehicles.

The amendment would resolve any issue of competency and enable an impact assessment of the changes in comparison with the rest of the UK, which might have an overall benefit for understanding. This is significant, because recent efforts, including two Private Members’ Bills—and an upcoming Department of Transport round table on the issue—have focused wholly on England and Wales. In his response, will the Minister at least give an undertaking that relevant Scottish representatives will be invited to these discussions in future? Both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government agree to the principle of devolving these powers, subject to agreement. There is agreement from this side of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

I support subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by the amendment moved by the Official Opposition. I hold a number of offices in motoring organisations and I support the thrust of the clauses which the Committee has just passed, and the one we are discussing now, which give the Scottish Parliament more jurisdiction over road traffic management in Scotland. However, I hope when that happens they will be sensible and not introduce differences for difference’s sake, remembering that motorists in this country travel frequently across the border from England into Scotland and vice versa. It would create an intolerable situation if they were to go out of their way to make differences for the sake of it. I like subsection (3) because it requires that, before Scottish Ministers make any change in regulation, they should consult the Secretary of State and,

“publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament an assessment of the impact on road safety of any difference between the proposed change in Scotland and road traffic rules in other parts of the United Kingdom”.

That is an important safeguard and I therefore support the amendment.

Scotland Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Lords Chamber

I was the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Minister in Scotland, and my noble friend Lord Stephen also had a big part to play in getting the offshore wind industry moving in Scotland. Many years of investment in that industry have brought about considerable advancements that have led to the generation of electricity by onshore wind being one of the cheaper forms of renewable energy. There is much scepticism in the industry as to whether the Government will do anything to support the onshore wind industry, but to give Scotland the opportunity to devise its own programme of contracts for difference and to develop the indigenous industries, skills and employment that go with that in a way that would help to reduce the cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer seems to be, by any stretch of the imagination, a win-win situation. I accept that this goes beyond the Smith commission but, as I have said, were the Smith commission deliberating today—in the light of what we have seen since the Government took office in May and brought forward their changes in the initial Energy Bill—one might expect this to be a sensible proposal to come from it. It is one that can suit the Government’s agenda, as well as giving meaningful and worthwhile powers to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister and that he will see that there is merit in this somewhat different but ambitious and innovative proposal. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 68A and 69 in this grouping. They are quite different. Amendment 68A simply seeks to put into the Bill a reference to hydro-electricity. I mention this because it is the poor relation of the renewable energy sources. Solar and wind power are mentioned a lot; hydropower is hardly ever mentioned. I am talking about not the big hydro-electric schemes in Scotland, which have made a big contribution to our energy needs, but small hydro-electric schemes. For example, in none of the three big reservoirs that feed Edinburgh, from the old ones, Talla and Fruid, to the new one, Megget, which was built during my time as the local MP—I never thought to raise this at the time, so I plead as guilty as everybody else for overlooking this—was a turbine added to the dam outfall so that energy could be produced.

The argument is that these small schemes produce only enough energy for local consumption, but added together they can be very significant. I recently visited two quite new ones on the River Ettrick and the River Yarrow in my old constituency. I was very impressed by the contribution that they can make to local communities. It is true that, when the wind does not blow there is no energy produced from wind power and that when the sun does not shine solar power does not work, but the water is flowing all the time—rather excessively, as we have seen in recent days, but it is there all the time. Added together, small hydro-electric schemes can make a major contribution to the energy needs of the country. That is why I would like to see it in the Bill in the way I suggest in Amendment 68A. It is a modest amendment but one that I hope might find favour with the Government.

Amendment 69 is the same as the rather more sweeping one that my noble and learned friend has just put forward. Amendment 69 seeks to take out the extraordinary new subsection (3), which says that the Secretary of State does not need to consult Scottish Ministers about introducing any levies for renewable electricity incentive schemes. I simply do not understand why that provision is there. In my view, the more consultation we write into this Bill and the more we make it essential for the Scottish Government and the Secretary of State to consult, the better. I am surprised that this provision appears in the Bill at all and I support my noble and learned friend in seeking its removal.

[Lord Dunlop]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is very interested in these energy schemes and very knowledgeable about them, and has spoken on other pieces of legislation in this connection. He raised a number of specific points in the debate. I am, of course, very happy to meet him to discuss those further.

Clause 58 creates a formal consultative role for the Scottish Ministers in the design of renewable electricity incentive schemes that will apply in Scotland. Our aim is to ensure the Scottish Ministers are able to comment on the design of new incentives to support renewable electricity generation that will apply in Scotland, or the redesign of existing schemes as they relate to Scotland. The new arrangement provides for a general duty to consult the Scottish Ministers on the design of incentive schemes for renewable electricity which will apply with respect to the existing schemes as they relate to Scotland, and any new schemes that will apply in Scotland.

The noble and learned Lord has tabled amendments that would extend the scope of Clause 58 to heat incentive schemes. We have exchanged correspondence and discussed it further. He has put on the record the response that I gave in my letter, so I will not repeat what he has already said. However, we believe that these amendments would duplicate existing regulations and are therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 67 seeks to amend Clause 58 to require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Parliament, in addition to consulting the Scottish Ministers, on renewable electricity incentive schemes, treating the Scottish Parliament as a conventional stakeholder rather than a legislative body. The amendment requires the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to statutorily consult all 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament when making changes to renewable electricity incentive schemes. In our view, this would lead to overly complex and time-consuming consultations that would affect the smooth operation of renewables schemes. For example, were the Scottish Parliament in recess, this could delay the conclusion of a consultation, delaying the implementation of UK government policy. The Government consider the inclusion of consultation with the Scottish Ministers is appropriate. However, Members of the Scottish Parliament are already able to make their views known during public consultations.

Amendment 68B seeks to amend Clause 58 to require the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to consult the Scottish Ministers on amendments to renewable electricity support schemes which are of a minor nature or are made only for technical or administrative reasons and to consult the Scottish Ministers about any levy in connection with a renewable electricity incentive scheme. The noble and learned Lord took on board the de minimis aspect of the first part of that. As drafted, Clause 58 excludes the requirement to consult the Scottish Ministers on minor, technical or administrative issues. In general, this exclusion will apply to changes unlikely to have a significant impact on generators or potential generators, such as making changes to references to technical documents, or making changes to an application procedure. This amendment would, therefore, lead to overly complex and time-consuming consultations that would affect the smooth operation of the schemes.

Amendment 69 also seeks to amend Clause 58 to require the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to consult the Scottish Ministers about any levy in connection with a renewable electricity incentive scheme. I note what the noble and learned Lord said about that and I am very happy to discuss this further with him. Levies on particular companies—for example, electricity suppliers—are sometimes created to sit alongside renewable energy incentive schemes as a way of funding them. An example is the supplier obligation which requires electricity suppliers to pay for the contracts for difference scheme. Levies to fund renewable support schemes are considered to be a form of taxation and taxation is generally a reserved matter. Devolution of specific tax powers is dealt with elsewhere in the Smith commission agreement

Scotland Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, it is worth giving support to this amendment and pointing out that the original Sewel convention changed over time. In the Scottish Parliament we used to refer to a “Sewel Motion”, but as the convention developed we introduced the term “legislative consent Motion” and dropped the other term. The Sewel convention was also changed and widened, which we will debate in subsequent amendments. It does seem something of an anomaly.

An interesting point is whether a Member of this House can make an amendment to the title of a clause in this way. It is an interesting point which I hope might be commented on by the Minister. In the past, other Members of this House have been told that that would not be appropriate and it would perhaps be possible for the Government to introduce such a change at a later stage. But it is interesting to see that it is on the Marshalled List today and is being debated. I also note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who is very wise on these matters, is nodding his head, so I think there is an issue there that needs to be explored.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I back up what my noble friend has said. I was in the House when we passed the Scotland Bill and I was never, ever happy with having the Sewel convention translated into law. So I am very glad to support the amendment and it is high time that this was put right.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, first, there is the question of whether the heading is a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen rather than this House, and that is an issue, in my respectful submission. But let us turn to the substance of the—