Scotland Bill
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, I just want to raise one little matter about the drafting of Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Surely it would be better if the provisions to set penalties for drink-driving and for random breath-testing were put in Clause 24, which concerns drink-driving, rather than in Clause 25, which concerns speeding.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, where I disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth is in our attitude to devolution as a whole. I would sign up for what is called “devo-plus”. I define that as meaning the greatest amount of devolution consistent with common sense. When we come to debate financial issues I will say more about that, in the light of Prime Minister Cameron's recent utterances in Scotland. Given that we are likely to come back to the issue in future legislation, if we take a definition of “consistent with common sense”, I say with great respect to my colleagues who served on the Calman commission that I am not certain that different categories of air guns, different drink-driving limits or different speed limits are consistent with common sense, and we would do better to remove them altogether.
My noble friend referred to those who live on the border. When I was first elected to the Commons, my constituency boundary was the English/Scottish border. My nearest railway station is across the border. When I come to your Lordships' House by train, which I do from time to time, I have to travel across the border. Let us suppose, although it is unlikely, that the Scottish Government decided to keep the drink-driving limit higher than it is in England, and let us suppose that I repaired to that excellent institution, the Cross Keys Inn in Ettrickbridge, before setting out on my journey. I could then find myself within the law for the first part of my journey and then fall foul of the law for the second part. A much more likely scenario would be that I met my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the train going north and we had a meal and a convivial glass of wine. I could then be perfectly legal on leaving the station and suddenly illegal as I neared my home. This is not consistent with common sense. When we come to a future Scotland Bill, I hope that we might drop these issues and deal with more substantial devolution questions that are of greater interest to the Scottish people.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as I listened to the debate I wondered whether my noble friends had driven through Europe. The exact problems they explained to the House are those that one gets in Europe. Last week I drove through three countries in about an hour and a half. In each of them there was a different speed limit. This was well signposted at the side of the road and I did not cause immense problems.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for a helpful reply. As he said, it has been a good debate, notwithstanding the manifest flaw in my drafting of the amendment, for which I take full responsibility. Now that the Minister has drawn our attention, or reminded those of us who have seen it and been involved with it previously, to the concordat on international relations, it might be useful to draw it again to the attention of the Scottish Government in the gentle, kindly way in which he is used to doing.
Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd that even people of my age—even people at the age of my noble friend Lord Maxton and upwards—can come up with ideas occasionally. He was worried about sanctions. Let me underline that I am not suggesting this but, for example, if any expenditure incurred by a devolved Administration were ultra vires—in other words, they were doing things for which they had no responsibility whatever—sanctions could be available.
I should like to say how much I appreciated the intervention of my noble friend—perhaps I may call him that—Lord Wigley. Perhaps I can put it this way: we are not used to quite such sensible nationalists in our parts. I thought that his contribution was very diplomatic, sensible and helpful to the debate.
Now we come to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who I suspect, from what I know of him and from his contribution, is not quite used to the hurly-burly of Scottish politics. He will know—if he does not, I will tell him—that all of us here involved in the hurly-burly of Scottish politics are willing to make our arguments in any ring that is made available. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested one the other week. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I have discussed it.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The noble Lord is underestimating the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. When he was ambassador in America and I was on a visit to Washington, he invited me to stay. He added to his invitation, “You’ll have had your tea”.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, the two noble Lords who have spoken on this section have made one point with which I very warmly agree—that we are now coming to the real meat in this Bill. This afternoon we were dealing with what I call “tinkering devolution”. This is not tinkering—it is much more serious. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, since the last day we discussed this Bill, there has been a very important development with the Prime Minister’s visit to Scotland and the announcement that he made. He said that if we turn down independence in a referendum, the door would be open to better and greater devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. One of the problems with Mr Cameron—and, indeed, with Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg, too—is that they were all at primary school in 1979, when a similar promise was made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. That was never fulfilled, as we oldies well recall.
My submission to the House today is that the circumstances today are quite different from those in 1979. Alec Douglas-Home was an honourable man, but he was not in a position to influence Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hostility to devolution. One reason why the Secretary of State, Michael Moore, is absolutely right to argue for a swift decision on independence is that we could then have two years left in this Parliament with David Cameron as Prime Minister to fulfil his promise, even though Alex Salmond does not like it.
Talking of Alex Salmond, I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes said earlier. Those who criticised Mr Salmond for his abusive rhetoric towards a BBC producer a couple of weeks back were, I submit, rather missing the point. I have to admit that I both admire and like Alex Salmond. You could put that down to prejudice stemming from our common youth in Linlithgow, where I first saw him as an angelic choir boy in my father’s church. That is not an adjective that I have heard applied to him in recent times. But admiring or liking him does not mean agreeing with him. When I switched on my television on that Saturday afternoon to watch that dreadful Calcutta Cup match, the last thing that I wanted to see was the First Minister popping up to give us his inexpert views. He should be concentrating on governing the country and not looking for camera calls wherever he can. What I admire about him is his chutzpah—but it is also slightly worrying, because there is a touch of “L’État, c’est moi”, as Louis XIV of France was reputed to have claimed. We are told by some people that to be anti-SNP is to be anti-Scottish. It is time that they understood that the rest of us actually resent being told that to be pro-Scotland you have to be pro-SNP. That is not the case.
I have been told by other broadcasters that the Salmond rugby experience was not unique for them and that the SNP heavies have made more regular calls and complaint to newsrooms than all the other political parties put together. That runs at times close to intimidation.
Lord Maxton
Does the noble Lord not think that the strangest thing about that whole incident was Alex Salmond complaining that the BBC was somehow biased against him. I suggest that anybody who listens to “Good Morning Scotland” as I do on a fairly regular basis every morning would know that the exact opposite is the truth.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I was going to go on to say that we are actually seeing a trend towards the attributes of a one-party state, where news bulletins are led by stories of what the dear leader has been doing today. That is a real danger.
There is also the question of vagueness of what independence really means for us financially. Until recently, the official position of the Scottish National Party was in favour of joining the euro, until the problems of the eurozone suggested instead that there was safety in keeping sterling, presumably with all the Bank of England controls. Some independence, that—not for them, apparently, the genuine independence of the Irish punt or the Danish kroner.
On the subject of Denmark, a former Foreign Minister of that country is a good friend of mine and a fishing companion. There was one occasion when the two of us went fishing in Iceland as a guest of the Prime Minister. My respect for them and their countries does not lead me to wish to see a Scottish Foreign Minister with similar limited global influence. I would rather have Scots such as Robin Cook and Malcolm Rifkind, both of whom I disagreed with but who wielded strength as Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom. That is the proper role for Scots in future.
I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Martin, mentioned Trident, not in the context of defence policy but in that of economic and financial policy. The SNP’s little Scotland approach is best seen in its attitude to the Trident missile programme. We Liberals were never in favour of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent in the first place, and we do not wish to see it replaced. The SNP said that it would remove the base from Faslane to have it anywhere so long as it is south of Carlisle. My view is that until we succeed in getting rid of it altogether, it might as well stay where it provides many jobs and helps the Scottish economy.
I still believe that most Scots would like to see maximum devolution consistent with common sense, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was right in describing opinion polls. That means substantially greater financial powers than in the clauses that we are now discussing. I regard this section of the Bill as only one small step in the right direction. It is not a new view of mine or one occasioned by the rise of the SNP. When I took office as presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, I argued from day one that no self-respecting Parliament can exist permanently on a grant from another Parliament and that we should move to the point where the Scottish Parliament has the power to raise the money that it spends on all these devolved issues. This Bill is a significant but small step in the right direction.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Can the noble Lord just say what new taxes he thinks the Scottish Parliament might invent using this power?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I have no idea. The important point is that it should have the power to raise funds as it wishes for all the devolved issues. It is no good going on talking about refining the Barnett formula and changing the grant system. It is up to the Scottish Parliament to devise its own taxation methods and raise the money for its own purposes. That is what I would like to see happen, and this Bill moves us slightly in that direction.
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 Steel of Aikwood
If the noble Lord will allow me, surely the point he is making is valid. If the post-referendum decision is not to go independent and we take the Prime Minister at his word that more is on offer, it is possible for all the parties—including the SNP, as the Scottish Government—to join in working out the best form of devolution-plus, as I prefer to call it, which enables the Scottish Parliament to raise the money that it spends.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I suppose that my motive, as one who believes in the union and does not wish for Scottish independence, is that it seems that the chances of a vote for Scottish independence would be much reduced if the credibility of the devo-max option had been enhanced by its prior specification. I cannot see who is going to do that and I am rather sorry that we seem to be going to miss the opportunity in this Bill to do it, subject to a sunset clause.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the directional effect that I have set out for the effect of what is proposed in this Bill compared to the current arrangements is clear. The question that people have is, on particular projections of growth and spending, what the effect would be. Of course, it is possible to give only the worked example of growth and spending based on the current spending settlement round and the current projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is no question that you can forecast for one period or any other period. It entirely depends on the assumptions you want to make about the performance of the Scottish economy and the policy decisions made by the Scottish Government about expenditure.
The key point I come back to is that it transfers a significant amount of responsibility and accountability for this balance to the Scottish Parliament, which of course is fully accountable to its electors. That really goes to the absolute heart of what we are talking about and it is why I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the point.
I think that I should bring this discussion to a conclusion—
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Earlier I was justly chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for calling this a small matter. As the Minister says, it is significant, but does he accept that it is still light years away from what the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Foulkes, and I were talking about earlier, and which we hope might become a future Bill? It would get rid of all this overriding supervision by the two Houses here and simply say to the Scottish Parliament, “You raise the money that you spend”.
Scotland Bill
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Scotland Bill
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
There is scope for another amendment, I think. I have tabled enough already, so perhaps the noble Lord might think of tabling one. Everyone here from Scotland will know that list Members have a habit of choosing a seat they would like to stand for in the constituency and then concentrate on opening an office and taking up issues in that constituency. If the constituency Member cannot deal with a problem—elected Members will know that some problems are insoluble—the candidate will jump on the bandwagon and take it up.
Dual candidacy is a real problem. I have tabled a later amendment proposing a general review of the electoral system. I will discuss that in greater detail when we get to that amendment. It would be a better way of dealing with the issue in the longer term, but this would deal with it in the short term. Our electoral system was set up with the best of intentions, but even the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who was involved, now recognises that it is not fit for purpose. One of the problems is the question of dual candidacy. I hope that other Members who have experienced the problems of dual candidacy in Scotland will comment, and I certainly hope that the Minister will consider the potential change and, at the very least, explain why there should be a different system in Scotland from the one that I understand operates quite successfully in Wales.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised two very important, if minor points. We have to remember that when we were legislating on the then Scotland Bill, in which I was involved in this Chamber, the additional Member system, as it is known, was completely new to this country. There were one or two loose ends that were not quite right.
On Amendment 16, which is the noble Lord’s more substantial amendment, I entirely agree with him. As Presiding Officer I had to deal privately with complaints from constituency Members about the activities of regional Members. It is slightly worse than the noble Lord said because quite often regional Members had not just stood and been defeated, they were intending to stand again in the constituency. People were sitting in the Parliament—quite unlike this place—and had every intention of fighting a Member sitting on another Bench. That made for bad relations within the Parliament and some people—I shall name no names—exploited it disgracefully. In Wales—
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I shall give way in a second. The same problem arose in the original Welsh legislation—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—but it was the wish of the Welsh people to change the rule. Unfortunately there is not the same will in Scotland, not even in my own party.
Lord Wigley
It was not exactly the same in Wales. The circumstances are different in that there are four Members on the list in Wales, compared with seven in Scotland. The proposed changes would not overcome one of the basic problems. Someone who has been elected on a list can still stand at the next election for a constituency seat and do exactly what the noble Lord described, and can give up the regional seat in standing for the constituency.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I take that, but what they cannot do in Wales and not only can but actually do in Scotland is stand in the constituency and also be on the list. They have a fallback position which is not the case in Wales. That is wrong and it should be put right. Whether we can do it in this Bill is another matter but the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raises a very important point.
On the noble Lord’s other more minor amendment about by-elections in the event of an independent Member creating a vacancy, I have an additional point to make. My memory is fading but I think that I gave evidence to the Calman commission, which has not dealt with it in the report. I was elected on the regional list as a Liberal Democrat and when I went into the Chair, of course, I had to resign from the party. There was no way that I could be re-elected because I was no longer a member of the party; I was an independent. I could not stand in Edinburgh and say, “Please elect me because I am the Presiding Officer”. I am not saying that I wanted to particularly but it was impossible to do it. My two successors were fortunately elected in constituencies but that might not always be so. When a Presiding Officer happens to be a regional list Member there is no way that he or she can continue for a second Parliament. That cannot be right. There is a minor problem in addition about independents standing on the regional list. The whole thing would be clarified if we had a different electoral system but we are saddled with what we have now and I have no instant solution to that problem. It is one that ought to be taken up as we proceed with the Bill.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Is the noble Lord aware that the Conservative Party in Scotland had precisely the opposite rule—that in order to be on the list you had to stand in a constituency?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am most grateful. Every day I come to work in your Lordships’ House I learn something, and that is today’s learning experience. I had no idea that that was the case. Maybe at some stage—I will not take up your Lordships’ time with this now—somebody will explain to me why that was the case.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for including in the Bill the second part of this clause on the election of the Presiding Officer, possible deputies and temporary deputies. It arose directly out of evidence that I gave to the Calman commission, which arose in turn from my own experience when, despite trying to juggle radiotherapy for prostate cancer with my duties in the chair, I was absent for some time, and the Parliament found that it had no provision to enable it appoint even a temporary deputy to help take the load. I am glad that this clause appears in the Bill. I am thankful and I welcome it.
The other point that I wish to make is slightly astray of the Bill. Members of the House will note that under Clause 4(3) the Parliament has 14 days from polling day to meet and elect a Presiding Officer. That is in stark contrast to what happens here. I have on other occasions severely criticised the haste with which the present coalition was put together, which I thought was entirely unnecessary. Under the Scottish arrangement, which was already much looser, because of proportional representation it was anticipated before the first election that a coalition was more likely than not and therefore that there was plenty of time. My noble and learned friend was actively involved and will remember how long it took, even with a more limited agenda, which the Scottish Parliament has compared with Westminster, to put a coalition together. It was done with great care and skill and it worked. Without going into extraneous matters, I think that the haste with which the coalition was put together at Westminster was a mistake and that perhaps they can learn by reading Clause 4 of this excellent Bill.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and his offer of a letter, which will help. We have had a long debate on this but some important issues and points of principle have been raised.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I do not know whether I am interrupting at the wrong point but, after listening to the past hour of debate, I want to add that even those of us who are enthusiastic about devolution have to admit that it has created a field day for lawyers. We have lawyers galore all over the place. I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, for describing very accurately at the beginning of his speech the triple-lock mechanisms that exist, first, with the Executive’s legal advice, then with the Presiding Officer’s legal advice, and finally with the Advocate-General’s legal advice, to ensure that we do not get into difficulties with one Parliament attempting to legislate where it has no authority to do so.
I seem to recall that in the very early days of the new Parliament—my noble and learned friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, will correct me if I have this wrong—when my noble and learned friend was Minister of Justice and the noble and learned Lord was the Solicitor-General, we had real difficulty in my department because the law department was not fully staffed. Both noble and learned Lords will remember that we had a backlog of legislation from the days when my noble friend Lord Forsyth rightly said that he was effectively in opposition rather than in government, and we had all the reports of the Scottish Law Commission waiting to be put into effect. We had a flood of very early legislation, none of which was particularly controversial but all of which had to be gone through. I remember that the staff in my office were almost in a state of breakdown because they did not have the capacity to give the necessary legal advice, although it was eventually given.
My noble friend Lord Stephen asked whether the legal advice would be made public. The answer is no, not normally anyway. After all, legal advice is advice; the decision rests with Ministers and with the Presiding Officer. What would happen if there were an FOI request, I have no idea. It never happened in my time so I do not know the answer to that. However, it is important that everybody knows that these locks exist even though, as I say, they provide endless employment for lawyers on a grand scale.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, mentioned emergency legislation. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I mention a final anecdote, but I recall the occasion when we had to rush through a piece of emergency legislation following a decision of the court over the release of somebody from Carstairs Hospital. That occurred one summer. I remember it clearly. Her Majesty was at Balmoral. I was told that the Advocate-General could not possibly take the 28 days that he was normally allowed and that the measure would be rushed through. I was asked where I was going to be located in order to receive the Advocate-General’s advice, sign it off and send a letter to Her Majesty asking her to give Royal Assent. I was at home. I think that it must have been a Saturday as I was having lunch, untypically, with two hereditary Conservative Members of this House. That was not my normal custom but just happened to be the case on that occasion. A courier arrived on a motor bike from Edinburgh. He saw me through the kitchen window and so knocked on that window rather than going to the door. I opened the window, received the document, undid all the pink ribbon and the vellum, looked at the Advocate-General’s response and signed the letter to Her Majesty asking her whether she would be kind enough to give Royal Assent to this very important emergency legislation. I gave the letter back to the man on the motor bike and asked him, “Are you taking this to Balmoral now?”. He replied, “Yes”. I said, “Let me give you a piece of advice. When you get there, don’t knock on her kitchen window”.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
I thank my noble and learned friend very much indeed for accepting the principle of the amendment. I hope I may say, by way of a one-sentence reply to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that he reminds me of the famous parliamentary statement that lawyers should be elected only with so much circumspection, and therefore it will not happen very often.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My history is wrong; I shall have to check with the noble Duke afterwards.
The amendment would set up a general review of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, and it is about time that we had such a review. As was said in one of our earlier debates, the additional member system was very new to Scotland—and to the United Kingdom. It is similar to the German system but was very new to us. It was devised through multiparty discussions—not all parties were involved—as to what might be a suitable proportional system to ensure that no party would have an overall majority, an issue to which we will come back; and to ensure that all parties were properly represented in the Scottish Parliament.
However, because the system was new, my recollection is that it was recommended that there should be a review after two Sessions of the Scottish Parliament. We are now into the fifth Session and there has been no review. It is about time that we had one and, as I understand it, it is our responsibility to suggest, if not actually to set up, a review. It was recommended by the Arbuthnott committee, and I shall come back to that in a moment. If I may mention him, even one of the architects of the additional member system or at least one of the people involved in the discussions that led up to it, the noble Lord, Lord Steel—I blame other people for the system—has been reported as saying he believes that it is no longer fit for purpose. I have spoken to a number of people who have come to the same conclusion.
Let me deal with one or two of the problems. First, we have two types of MSPs—list Members and constituency Members. When the system was set up, the division between them was much greater than now. There has been some attempt to bring them together and to reduce the differences. Nevertheless, it is clear that constituency Members have the primary constituency responsibility. Regional Members, who have responsibility for a whole region, in the past few Parliaments have been increasingly requested and required to take on responsibility for individual cases referred to them. What is of course happening is that members of the public go first to their constituency Member who takes the matter up with officials and resolves the problems, if possible. However, some problems do not have a resolution. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament will know that problems can be intractable. However, the individual constituent does not necessarily think that and then says he will go over the head of the constituency Member to the regional Member. Later on, if the regional Member cannot deal with the problem, it comes to the MP. No doubt, if a senate were to replace this place, and if the MP could not deal with the problem, the constituent would go to the senator. That is a debate for another day.
There is a division between the types of MSPs. They have different workloads; there is overlap, competition and confusion between them. We heard earlier that some regional MSPs target constituencies. They set up offices and work in constituencies with a view to fighting the sitting MSP at the next election. The system seems almost designed for them to do that. Having two types of Members creates a problem.
Secondly, there is confusion in voting. Members will understand that and will have seen it happening. When you explain to members of the public that they have two votes, they find it difficult to understand the purpose of those two votes. It is difficult to explain their purpose. We in the Labour Party—those in other parties do exactly the same—say, “First vote for the constituency member and then vote for the party”, but it is inevitable that someone will say, “Okay, I’ll give my first vote to this Labour constituency member, but I like the Greens”, or the Liberal Democrats, “as well, so I will give them my second preference”. Sometimes there is confusion that it is a preference vote, which of course it is not; it is a different voting system.
Arbuthnott stated in his report:
“The Commission found that there were problems with the public understanding of the electoral system”.
The report states that especially confusing was the regional vote, which the public believed was a second preference vote. Survey data indicated that a significant proportion of people did not understand how seats would be distributed within the Scottish Parliament.
I now want to tell you briefly about my experience. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, when he was First Minister, whether I would help to lead the Labour campaign in the Lothian region. I agreed to do that. He said: “George, let's put you on the list”. I put my name into the hat and we had a ballot among Labour members in Lothian and, lo and behold, I came top of the list, so I was number one, on the understanding that never before had any Labour member been elected for Lothian. I told my wife that there was no way I would be elected. I told the Chief Whip here, because I was a Member of this House, “Don't worry, I will be here every day because there is no way I will be elected”.
I campaigned for the constituency members of the marginal seats to ensure that I was not elected. Imagine that. You are a candidate and you campaign for the constituencies just to ensure that you do not get elected. I did all my campaign work in two marginal seats: Central Edinburgh and Linlithgow, which we held. Unfortunately, we lost two seats that we thought were safe. I thought, “That doesn’t matter, the Greens always get two in Edinburgh, there is still no way that I will be elected”. However, the Greens did not do so well in that election. I was at the count walking up and down. The husband of Sheila Gilmore, who is now Member of Parliament for East Edinburgh, Brian Gilmore, who is head of the statistics department at Edinburgh University, came up to me and said, “George you’re going to get elected”. I said, “No, no, I’ve told my wife. I’ve told the Chief Whip”. Brian is the best statistician I know. I phoned Liz and said “There is a chance that I may be elected”. She said, “What?” I said, “I’ll phone you back later”. An hour later, she had had the chance to adjust to all that, and I left Steve Bassam until the following week. I was elected because of the system. I had not campaigned for myself. I had spent not one penny on the election. I produced no election leaflets whatever. I held no meetings at all for that election. It was astonishing, but there I was, a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
That was your mistake: if you had done, you might not have got elected.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I treat the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as a friend of mine; in fact, he was at the party as well. He will not be coming to my 80th, that is for sure—no, that is a very good point.
It illustrates the absurdity of it all. When I was a Member of Parliament for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, which we considered a relatively safe seat, I had meetings all over the place. I produced literature and spent almost the limit to make sure that I got elected. In 1997, I ended up with the largest majority in Scotland as a result. We worked hard to get elected. It seems absurd, having worked hard year in, year out to get elected as a Member of Parliament in that constituency from 1979 to 2005, I just floated in easily to the Scottish Parliament. It is a strange system.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That anticipates another point. Whoever was the architect—I think that it was Henry McLeish and others of his ilk who said, “This system will never produce an overall majority for any party. Be reassured. Don’t you worry”. Look what we have—less than 45 per cent of the people who voted in that election voted for the SNP, yet it has a relatively substantial majority in the Scottish Parliament. It does not work. When I asked one of the other people, who I will not name, and who I have just remembered was also one of the architects, why this came about, he said, “Because the system is weighted in favour of the rural areas”. That was deliberate—not to ensure that nobody got an overall majority but that Labour did not get an overall majority. It was not done for party political advantage.
Like my noble friend Lord Maxton, I argued for first past the post. I am still arguing for it and will fight to keep it for the House of Commons. I know that some Members opposite will join in that fight. Let us keep it there; I wanted to have it for the Scottish Parliament, but we did not get that. I would like to have a review to go to first past the post but, to use a phrase that was used earlier in another context, the genie is out of the bottle, and I do not think that we can go back. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, that if we are to have a proportional system and we have single transferable voting for local government, there is a logical case to have the same voting system for the Scottish Parliament and local government. It would simplify things. I am not advocating this but simply saying that there is a logical argument in favour of it that could be put to the commission that will be set up.
I would also argue that one dreadful thing that has happened is the way in which we now have completely different boundaries for Westminster, Holyrood and local government. It is confusing everyone. In Wales they hope that with the revision of Westminster boundaries they will get them to coincide again. I hope that something will be done in Scotland to get the boundaries to coincide again. Let us say that the commission was convinced by the arguments for the single transferable vote. We would then have a simplified electoral system, with two elected levels having the same system. If we could get the boundaries more contiguous, we would make things simpler for the electorate and do a great service.
I look to the Minister when I say that I hope that some consideration will be given to this. A lot of time has passed since the Scottish Parliament was set up. Many people have suggested a review. I had been led to believe in the corridors and the Lobbies that the Government were looking at this and moving in this direction. I hope that they will move relatively quickly, and I hope that the Minister will be as sympathetic as he was in his answers to my previous amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I will show some gratitude to the noble Lord for his very good party on Saturday night by supporting the amendment that he moved. My serious point is that he was right to say that we were promised, at the time that the Scotland Act passed into law, that there would be a review of the election system after a couple of Parliaments. This has not happened and I hope very much that, whether or not we agree the amendment, there will be such a review.
I would support a review for four brief reasons. First, there is the question that we discussed, and that I will not repeat, about the clashes between regional Members and constituency Members. Despite what my noble and learned friend said earlier in debate, I know for sure that it has been a problem in some areas. The second reason is the one the noble Lord referred to just now. Since the Scotland Act came into being, we have changed the electoral system for local government. People are now familiar with STV, which they were not at that time when my noble friend and others were pressing for it to be adopted in the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
I come to my third reason. I used to be a very strong supporter of first past the post. Partly because I was the only Member of the House of Commons who represented three counties, I felt very strongly about the relationship between a Member and his constituency. However, the way the Boundary Commission has operated in Scotland—not just in creating differences between Scotland and Westminster but within Scotland itself—is extraordinary. Constituencies no longer represent communities but arithmetic. For example, a chunk of Midlothian was thrown into the Borders at the last election, despite the fact that a public inquiry had stated that it should not happen. The old first past the post basis under which one represented a community has gone, because of the obsession with representational arithmetic rather than communities.
The fourth and final reason why I support an inquiry is that we now have in Scotland no fewer than four election systems that we invite the electorate to indulge in. We have first past the post for Westminster, a party list system for the European elections, STV for local elections and a regional list system for the Scottish Parliament. I cannot think of any democracy in the world where there are four different systems for different elections.
Lord Maxton
Of course, if the Government that the noble Lord supports have their way, we may well have a fifth system for elections to this place.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The noble Lord must not tempt me to get on to that. Four is more than enough. That is in itself a very good reason why we should have a review of the whole electoral system. It should be objectively done. There is no party political gain to be had by anybody in this, but it is high time we had an independent look at how elections are run in Scotland.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I can put on the record now that right from the start of the discussions about the Scottish Parliament, I was opposed to the voting system. It got to a stage where the minute I came into a room, eyes would glaze over. As a consequence, I lost the ability to make my arguments. To some extent, my opposition was based on recognition of the difficulty of having regional list Members and the problems that it would create for individual constituency Members where you had someone who could helicopter into your constituency and cherry pick the issues. It makes it very difficult even if it is a member of your own party who is the regional list Member. It makes it very difficult to run a consistent service as an elected representative. Time after time I was told that I was old-fashioned and that I was being tribal. My heart told me that I wanted first past the post, because that was the way that my party would win; but my head told me that for a new system of government, for devolution, we had to find some other way of doing things—but I was extremely unhappy with AMS. As the Minister knows, that is parallel to the system which operates in New Zealand, where there has just been a referendum and, ironically, they have voted to keep it.
Having said that, I agree with my noble friend about the hotchpotch of systems and the problems caused by non-contiguous constituency boundaries. In a couple of instances, I may have been responsible for that because of decisions that I took as Secretary of State. You do not always get the opportunity to take the decisions that you would want to take. However, I am opposed to the proposal that my noble friend has put forward—not because I am opposed to the idea of a review, but because I think that when you have been comprehensively beaten in an election, you do not turn around and say, “We’ve got to change this”. I accept that the Government of whom I was a member could have done something about a review, and the coalition could have done something about a review before the Scottish Parliament elections. Frankly, however, I think that we have missed the boat. It would be interpreted as the unionist parties saying, “We was robbed”. We have just been saying that we must be absolutely certain that the referendum is fair and transparent and that the decision will be accepted by the majority, which is very important. I think that we have missed the boat.
Scotland: Constitutional Future
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My noble and learned friend knows that I did not take any part in the last Scottish elections, because I was following the advice of the late Lord Weatherill and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, that as a former Presiding Officer I should not take part in party political activity, but that did not mean that I was not watching what was going on. Does the Minister agree that what happened was that the SNP leaflets, and indeed the ballot paper, did not say, “Vote SNP for independence”? They did not even say, “Vote SNP for a referendum”. They said, “Vote SNP for Alex Salmond as First Minister.” Objectively, I thought that was rather successful. However, the idea now that there was some kind of mandate and that people were rushing into the polling booths to authorise the SNP to organise a referendum—and to decide who should vote in it, what the question is and when it should be held—is complete nonsense. Their manifesto did not even refer to the timing coinciding with Bannockburn, so let us get rid of this mandate theory.
The Government are right to come forward with a consultation paper. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that what will scunner the people of Scotland is if we spend the next three years discussing these issues instead of getting on with getting the two Governments together to work out a sensible way of letting the people of Scotland decide their future as soon as possible.
Scotland Bill
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.