Scotland: Constitutional Settlement

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s commitment on behalf of his party. It is important to say that all three United Kingdom parties have undertaken to make that commitment in their respective manifestoes. I also share the noble Lord’s view that devolution should not stop at Edinburgh, not least because in the constituency which I used to represent, there is a very strong view that there should be devolution within Scotland. Most of the powers to do that rest with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but in public debate we should be making that point very clearly because we have had considerable centralisation under the present SNP Administration.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that these are radical proposals, which represent a major step forward in the government of Scotland and which have been widely welcomed by most people in Scotland, except the SNP? It must always be remembered that the SNP was part of the Smith commission that signed up to these proposals and agreed them unanimously, then started to rubbish them as soon as they were announced. Does he not agree that this represents a far better, safer, more secure future for Scotland than independence based on an oil price of $110 a barrel, when today the price is less than $60 and sliding further?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend is right to remind us of what we might have been facing if Scotland had voted yes and of the black hole which would have emerged. It is also important that we continue that engagement; certainly, at the stakeholder event which I attended in Aberdeen there was considerable enthusiasm for the proposals that have been put forward. People very much welcomed the fact that the United Kingdom Government were engaging but it is important that the Scottish Government engage as well.

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

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, it seems to me that at times in this debate we have drifted some distance from the core issue of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015. What we have here today is quite a narrow technical measure that focuses on the change that will potentially be introduced to give votes to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scottish Parliament elections and in Scottish local government elections. As I understand it, all the parties in this Chamber, in the House of Commons and in Scotland support that move. Therefore, this is about practical, simple and straightforward politics.

Frankly, I do not care how many times the Government have changed their position from one document or from one day to the next. Sometimes in this House we very much welcome a change of position from the Government as long as they get to a good position, and surely that is the core issue here. I think that on this they have reached a practical, sensible, progressive and positive way forward. To be frank, having read the document, I am no great fan of supermajorities. I do not know how many other noble Lords recall that my noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke out against supermajorities. A supermajority is not something that I particularly wish to see. As I understand it, it was agreed as a compromise as part of the tough negotiations under the Smith commission that the Labour Party, as well as the other parties, was very much involved with. The other parties were not necessarily pushing for that supermajority. Regardless of that, let us come back to the issue. This is a simple, straightforward—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking for himself or for the Liberal party, but when he says that he is not that keen on supermajorities—a view that I share—does he think that that should apply to the other things, other than the franchise, which at the moment, according to the Government, would be covered by a supermajority?

[Lord Stephen]

I am simply explaining my personal position, which is that of being sceptical about the need for supermajorities. However, they are not unique and if, as part of achieving consensus on the way forward on some of these issues, that was the position adopted by Smith, I could understand the background and the reasons for it.

Coming back to the issue in hand today, I think that this is a much more straightforward measure than we have reflected in our debate. The danger is that it will look as though we are dragging our heels and that we are a bunch of elderly dinosaurs who really do not want this to happen. That is a real concern. The debate is one thing but the suggestion in the headlines in the press that it will lead to, and in the political discussion in Scotland, will be that 16 and 17 year-olds do not have—what was the phrase used earlier?—“intellectual maturity”. Sometimes you could debate whether 30 year-olds, 50 year-olds or 70, 80 or 90 year-olds have intellectual maturity. I hope that that is a debate that we will never have, and I hope it is not an issue that we will focus on in terms of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Some of them have incredible intellectual maturity and a real interest in political issues. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I think they could make very good local councillors or Members of the Scottish Parliament.

I recall that when I was elected at the age of 22 I was the youngest councillor in Scotland. That felt very young at the time. You could be 18 when you voted but under the then Conservative Administration you had to be 21 before you could stand. I stood and was elected. I always used to argue that it would be very bad if all parliamentarians were 21 or 22 years old but that it was very good that some of them were young people, and I would argue the same today. I would argue to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds because I think that if you can get married and have children, join the Armed Forces and pay taxes, you should be entitled to a vote. It is a simple, practical and straightforward measure, and it represents constitutional change. I support the idea of a constitutional convention. Constitutional change in this country can be difficult to achieve, so I say, “Grab it when you can and build on it”. I think that we will build on it and that votes for 16 and 17 year-olds will come for all the rest of the United Kingdom in all elections.

However, it is not uncommon to have a different franchise for different elections. We have it already with EU elections compared with local government elections, UK elections and Scottish Parliament or Assembly elections. Different people have a different entitlement to be on the register. It is a different situation from that of age but it is a different register and a different entitlement. Similarly, in Scotland I would argue that far more important than a move to introduce votes for 16 and 17 year-olds was the move by the Scottish Parliament to introduce fair votes by introducing proportional representation for local government. That change was never introduced in the rest of the UK, although I hope that one day it will be. However, that is the sort of progressive constitutional change that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues want to see right across the United Kingdom.

So let us vote for change. Let us try to implement change, making it coherent, well thought out constitutional change that is not piecemeal. Sadly, my experience of politics in this country is that change tends to be far too piecemeal, and it often tends to be long delayed and not very progressive.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, in 1973 I introduced proportional representation in the reform of local government there, and I am glad that Scotland has followed our example.

[Lord Stephen]

I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, also wants to come in.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lest he unwittingly feeds the very headlines that he seems to fear so much, I want to make plain the burden of those of us who have questioned the measure today—and questioned it in terms of asking for an explanation, which is the essence of accountability. We were not saying that 16 and 17 year-olds lack the capacity or the maturity to vote; we were saying that it was a gross inconsistency to provide those people with the ability to vote for the future of a country but to exclude them from the ambit of intelligence when it came to buying cigarettes or driving. We said that it was incoherent to give them the vote in one part of this country but to deny them the franchise in other parts of the country. In other words, far from arguing that 16 and 17 year-olds were not capable, we questioned why they were capable of this—which many of us, including me, support—but not given access to the many other things that they are capable of doing. I hope that that undermines any anticipatory headlines. Finally, we should not be making policy on the basis of what we think the tabloids will write tomorrow.

[Lord Stephen]

I am not suggesting that we do. I have supported this measure since becoming a councillor at the age of 22. I have taken part in many debates on the issue and have heard many people challenge the position for the reason mentioned in today’s debate—that of intellectual maturity. It is a charge that I would like to rebut. The number of young people who were involved in the referendum debate in a constructive and positive way—not all of whom by any means supported Scottish independence—and who took a very mature, well thought out and well researched view on the matter underscored the importance of this issue. It also underscored why most Peers today, I hope, support this extension of the franchise. To make it consistent, it should be an extension across the UK, and the sooner that can happen, the better.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord has characterised us as being opposed to votes for 16 year-olds. For myself, I think that the genie is out of the bottle. We will need to have votes for 16 year-olds throughout the United Kingdom, and I would expect the coalition Government to come forward with proposals to that effect, having had a proper consultation period and having considered what the age of majority should be. The noble Lord has been very eloquent but can he deal with this point? It is not a unionist position to do this on a piecemeal basis. Also, if he is right about 16 year-olds, as I am sure he is, what on earth are we doing stopping them buying a packet of cigarettes or buying a drink?

[Lord Stephen]

I agree that there is great logic in the argument that has already been put forward in the exchange with my noble friend Lord Purvis about the age of consent, the age for voting, the age for driving, the age for marrying and the age for watching a film with an 18 certificate. We should be reviewing these things, but I am making a practical point. There is a strong argument for much greater consistency and I firmly believe that today’s measure can be part of driving that argument forward and can be the beginning of further change for the rest of the UK. That is why I think that today’s moves are very important. It is almost as if we have flushed out the position of some noble Lords that they do, in fact, support the extension of the franchise to the age of 16, and I warmly welcome that. As Peers and as politicians, we should spend more time engaging with young people, encouraging them and being positive about them. Too often in politics we tend to demonise young people and do them down, and that is a concern of mine.

I finish by paying tribute to Lord Mackie of Benshie, who, sadly, passed away last week. He had an incredible war record. Without people like him, the democracy that we have today simply would not exist. He had an incredible track record both in the House of Commons and in this House. My recollection of him is as a mentor. I got involved in politics at a very young age. I was 22 when I was first elected to the council, and very quickly after that I got involved in campaigning with Lord Mackie of Benshie, who was the president of the Scottish Liberal Party. He was a big influence in my life. I have no idea what his views on these issues would be and I do not pretend to set down his opinion, but I am sure he would be delighted that we are debating this issue and trying to engage more young people in politics, because that is what he did with me. He was very much a mentor, a counsellor and somebody who inspired my place in politics; and each of us can have that role for other young people. The tenor of the debate that we have on these issues is very important. That is why I believe that this Motion should go forward for approval.

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I have listened with tremendous interest to this debate and with the utmost appreciation for the wonderful exposition of the unionist case from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. One point above all has been borne in upon me: the absolute need for a consistent voting age throughout our country. It is a question of deep principle. Surely that is what we need to settle. Against that background, would it not be appropriate for the Government to withdraw this order, to secure—although, of course, it cannot come immediately—a proper parliamentary decision on the voting age? That should surely come first. That point will stay with me above all from this tremendously enjoyable and important debate.

Scotland: Draft Legislation

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point about the other recommendations in the Smith commission report on better intergovernmental and interparliamentary relationships. This is something which the Calman commission looked at although, regrettably, nothing much seemed to come of it. At the meeting of the joint ministerial committee which took place in December, the Prime Minister and the First Minister discussed these matters and there was an agreement, as a start, on looking at how to improve the current memorandums of understanding to address that issue. On parliamentary matters, there was a recommendation that the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament should have an early meeting, after these clauses were produced, with Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether that is in place but I endorse the view that there ought to be better parliamentary relationships, at least for better understanding and for less of the misunderstanding that can sometimes arise.

In answer to the second part of the question, this is an enduring settlement. As was reflected in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, from the Opposition Front Bench, 60% of government spending in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Parliament and 40% of the tax raised in Scotland will contribute to that spending. In each case, that is twice the OECD average for devolved administrations. We are building and creating an enduring settlement, but the noble Lord is right to say that it will require a lot of work and engagement between the respective Governments in terms of both the fiscal framework and the welfare provisions.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, despite the low-key nature of the title of today’s Statement, does my noble and learned friend agree that these detailed clauses are of crucial importance to the future constitutional arrangements for the whole of the United Kingdom? They not only deliver on the vow of the party leaders, but they deliver, for Scotland, the most radical home rule measures ever seen in this country. These measures are now supported, quite remarkably, by the leaders—and the vast majority of the membership—of the major parties in all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. Does he agree that it is vital that these measures must now be delivered, not only in the Queen’s Speech in May of this year but also in an Act of this Parliament in a new Scotland Act that should be delivered, if at all possible, by the end of 2015? I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can comment on the timetable for the shortest possible time for delivery of these proposals into legislation. Finally, does my noble and learned friend accept that, after home rule for Scotland, the next challenge is to deliver real devolution of powers, right across our regions and nations, in a federal United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would expect me to agree and I do, as my own party aspires to a federal United Kingdom. He rightly used the words “home rule”. This has been a campaigning issue for our party for more than 100 years. I am sure that Mr Gladstone would be very proud of what we have delivered today. He is right that we need to move on from here. There is a lot of work still to be done and we will ensure that today is not the end of the process. At official and ministerial level there is recognition of what more must be done so that a Bill is in preparation and ready to be brought forward after the Queen’s Speech following the election. The legislative timetable is not entirely in my hands, but it must be feasible to deliver this by the end of this year or, if not, in the early months of 2016. Having done it, I think all of us would want the issue to be about how the Scottish Parliament is going to use these powers. For so long we have had debates about what the powers are, whereas many people are asking how the powers can be used to improve the lot, and the social and economic well-being, of the people of Scotland.

Finally, I agree that the devolution of power is something which my noble friend and I in our party aspire to. But, as I have already said, the comments coming from some leading members of the Scottish National Party MSPs in recent weeks about centralising power and the attacks that there have been on local government in Scotland are very alarming. We have seen too much centralisation in the last two or three years in Scotland. I very much hope that a fresh wind of decentralisation will sweep through Scotland.

Scotland: Devolution

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on his insightful contribution. I share his deep concern about the dangers that we faced at one point of this referendum: of losing so much of what the union has been over the last 300 years.

This has been a very good debate and there have been some very wise comments, particularly on the nature, appeal and real dangers of nationalism. Nationalism has the ability, in the right place and at the right time, to whip up passion and fervour among those who feel disconnected, disengaged or disfranchised. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, was the first to point out that there was a very nasty edge to this referendum campaign. I spoke in a previous debate about the treatment, for example, of JK Rowling or that of the mother of a disabled child—who dared to say that she intended to vote no—by the First Minister’s media adviser. You could see it on the streets as well. What did it for me was seeing not the treatment of Jim Murphy but rather the ugly heckling and barging of an elderly woman who dared to approach him, simply to ask a question about the campaign. That is not the sort of Scotland that I ever want to see again.

I have no doubt that if the yes vote had won, there would have been a carnival of triumphalism. George Square and its fountains would have been occupied for days. The no voters are very different. There was a sigh of huge relief across Scotland after weeks of agony about the outcome but no triumphalism there. Instead, there was sensible and constrained silence except, sadly, as several noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have pointed out, from the steps of No. 10 Downing Street. Rather than the Prime Minister’s essentially partisan speech which was trying to gain party advantage that morning, he and the other party leaders should have travelled to Scotland together to give substance to their pledge, show respect for the decision of the people of Scotland and help to unite and heal. There is still time for that to be done.

I have considerable confidence in the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and his team to deliver a radical set of proposals for significant new powers on both tax and policy to Scotland. It is worth pointing out that, for the first time, the Scottish National Party is participating in the process of delivering a stronger, more powerful Scottish Parliament. It turned its back on the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Calman commission but now it is part of the Smith commission, which is a good thing. I wish all members of that commission well in their endeavours. I have considerable confidence in their ability to deliver home rule for Scotland—home rule of the kind for which my noble friend Lord Tyler and I, along with many others in this Chamber, have always campaigned.

There is a kind of federalism which is beginning to develop momentum for the rest of the UK. I have heard many noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talk about federalism in a passionate way, which bodes well for future debate on this issue. However, I have considerable concern about the issue of shaping the future of the rest of the UK. I do not care whether it is a commission or a convention, frankly, or whether it is royal or not. What I care about is that it should be rapid, radical and federal.

By “rapid” I do not mean that it has to be decided in the next 100 days or by Burns night, or whenever the deadline might be. Quite clearly, Scotland has to come first and that is the vow. However, it does mean getting on with it for the rest of the UK. By “radical”, I do not mean that I want to force a particular solution on England; it means that giving more powers to local government in England is simply not nearly enough. By federalism, moreover, I do not mean a single, fixed solution but more the federalism of the kind emphasised by my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It is the sort of approach that can be taken in Australia, South Africa, Canada or Spain. There are so many examples around the modern democratic world but it appears not to be able to be grasped here in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cormack]

But there is no federation where one country within that federation has 85% of its population.

[Lord Stephen]

Exactly, which is why we must devolve within England; this is exactly the point that I hope to come on to. We can have different approaches in devolving power across England. We need a coherent structure for that, but we can be very flexible inside that structure. Canada is a very good example. However, the current focus on a purely English solution—a sort of English nationalism—is for me simply not good enough. I believe in devolution, not simply because Scotland is a nation and is the only part of the United Kingdom that deserves these powers, but because decentralising power is a good thing. It makes for better decision-making. A decentralised United Kingdom would in my view be a better democracy for us all.

If the referendum in Scotland leads to this—to a better more decentralised democracy for all of the United Kingdom—then there could be no better tribute to those who quietly but passionately voted no. Those who trusted the Westminster party leaders and had faith in something better are the people who have created this opportunity. It is now our responsibility together, across the political divide, to deliver. The very future of our united nation depends on it.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, as has been said, this is a vitally important issue. It is the biggest issue facing the future not only of Scotland but of all of us here and all of us in the United Kingdom. Thursday 18 September is a very important day.

A great deal of very good work has been done by the committee and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, and the members of the committee on many aspects of this excellent report. Very good work has been done also by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, and my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General. We now have a very solid and comprehensive list of reports from the UK Government setting out the case for keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom.

The leaders of all the Scottish political parties who oppose independence also deserve very significant praise. Willie Rennie, Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson have done exactly the right thing by confirming the commitment of their parties to future constitutional change. Particular praise should go to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and to the Conservative Party for the radical set of proposals that has been produced after, if I may say so, a few decades of slight reluctance.

It does political parties no credit whatever when individuals within them start to attack each other or suggest separate campaigning. Working together, as in the campaign to join the European Union back in the 1970s, is what impresses people; and what convinces them is the guarantee that there will be radical new powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a no vote in September, and when that guarantee is delivered by individuals such as Charles Kennedy, Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell and—if I may use the names by which they are known and more widely respected in Scotland—Annabel Goldie, John Reid and David Steel. These are the individuals who can be trusted to help deliver the no vote on 18 September.

In contrast with those names is the face of nationalism. When I first met Alex Salmond I sat next to him at a lunch in Aberdeen. I was a young councillor; he was a candidate. I was talking about Scottish politics and the Socialists, meaning, believe it or not, the Labour Party at that time. He checked me on that occasion and asked me to confirm which party I meant. Then he said, “Always remember, Nicol, there are two socialist parties in Scotland: the Labour Party and the SNP”.

Alex Salmond does not say that any more. At that time he may have been right; some nationalist parties are socialists. Many are right-wing and some are in the centre ground of politics. Some nationalist movements believe in producing a bigger state—bringing together the state of Germany or the state of Italy. Some believe in smaller states: Bosnia, Croatia, the Czech Republic or Scotland. Each is very different—one might say chameleon-like—apart from one thing. They will do whatever needs to be done to deliver the nation state that they believe in.

Therefore socialist nationalism of the 1980s—“We are the inheritors of Red Clydeside”, they used to tell us—has changed to modern, civic, soft nationalism. Alex Salmond has changed too. He is now moderate, smiles, is nice to the Opposition and keeps his temper—so they tell us. He does that not because that is the real Alex Salmond but to deliver nationalism, independence, separation.

What should be our response? There is a lot of talk of patriotism. I must confess to being instinctively uncomfortable with patriotism in politics. There are people who like to counter the SNP by saying, “I am just as patriotic as you, Mr Salmond”. In debate, it works quite well, but for me, patriotism is a bit like nationalism: it comes in many forms, not all of them good and positive; some of them are very negative. Patriotic politics, just like religious politics, can be volatile and nasty. We have seen that in recent years, we have seen that in recent days. We must avoid a volatile and nasty campaign.

The cybernats, the attack dogs of the nationalist movement, are not positive people. They can get very nasty. Their attacks on JK Rowling last week were nothing short of disgraceful. I am pleased that the Lord Advocate is considering prosecution of some of the more extreme haranguing that she received. However, it goes right to the top. The First Minister’s special adviser, still working for Alex Salmond to this day, attacked the mother of a disabled child who supported the Better Together campaign. The First Minister can do little better than say that there have been faults on both sides. That is not the sort of leadership that we should be looking for in this campaign. That is the dark, divisive side, the unacceptable face of nationalism.

In being endlessly positive about the good reasons for keeping this country in the United Kingdom, we should not forget the nature of the challenge we are facing. It will be crafty, clever campaigning against us. Everyone knows that economics will be at the heart of the campaign. The perceived wisdom is that if people believe that they will be better off by a few hundred pounds, it could swing the pendulum of their vote either way. On such does the fate of a nation hang. Surely the future of one of the most prosperous and successful nations on this planet should be decided on better grounds than that. We are told by the nationalists: “Risks? None. Dangers? None. Negatives? None. Threats? None”. Authoritative academic reports are rigged, muddled or misleading. I have twice been promised through my letterbox thousands of pounds more if I vote for independence. That is the nationalism that we face in 21st century Scotland.

I believe that we should be looking for a better way forward. At my heart, I am a liberal and a democrat. For me, those are enduring values. Nationalism is not what drives me; nor is patriotism. I believe in the values that put people and communities first. I believe in decentralisation of power, not in separation. I very much welcome the initiative by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Purvis to take the initiative to try to achieve decentralisation of power right across the whole of the United Kingdom.

The people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom are best when we are internationalist in our values—values of interdependence and working together. Those are the values that should drive us in the 21st century, not the politics of nationalist division that blighted so much of the 20th century. The people of Scotland and the United Kingdom, working together, have done great things. We have produced great scientists, great poets, great politicians, great entrepreneurs, great economists and great people. That is positive politics, the politics of hope, the politics of what might be. That is why we should say loudly and decisively, “No thanks”, to independence on 18 September and yes to a new Scotland in a better, reformed United Kingdom.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously said, the current arrangements of a full monetary, fiscal and political union bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, is it not vital that we all spend the time between now and the referendum in September working together and positively campaigning in favour of Scotland staying part of Great Britain and part of the United Kingdom? Speculating on the constitutional detail of what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum does not necessarily help in that united campaign.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is vital that our focus is on ensuring that there is a substantial no vote in the referendum in September and that we set out the benefits. Ahead of the debate in your Lordships’ House tomorrow morning, I hope later this afternoon to send out to noble Lords the 20 positive reasons—there are many more—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier this month together with links to the 10 analysis papers published so far in Scotland, which make a very compelling case for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland remaining part of it.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, other than those staff who are involved in the diplomatic corps I cannot think of any precedent for that. The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I repeat that we are not contingency planning, nor are we, indeed, complacent. However, the parts of the White Paper on current Civil Service jobs located in Scotland that I have seen come to some very glib conclusions on what would happen and do not seem to take account of what those civil servants themselves would wish to do.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the White Paper contains 670 pages of assertion and fudge on some very big issues indeed rather than frankness and fact? Does he also agree that the people of Scotland deserve a fair and honest debate, not one where vital facts are massaged and manipulated? Ignoring for today, at least, the big issues of the currency and NATO membership, and drilling down on to this issue of EU membership, will my noble and learned friend consider the topical and very recent comments of the Spanish Prime Minister on Scotland’s EU membership? He has made it very clear that the EU does not intend to dance to the tune of the president of Scotland—that was his description of Alex Salmond, not mine. Does my noble and learned friend agree that these are very serious comments which deserve the most serious consideration by the people of Scotland on the issue of fact rather than speculation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, clearly, membership of the European Union, in the event of independence, is a very important issue. The novel proposal made by the Scottish Government is one which we will look at but we do not think that it accords with how any other member state has interpreted Article 48 of the TFEU. In any event, even under the Scottish Government’s analysis, it would require other member states to sign up. We certainly note the comments of the Spanish Prime Minister with considerable interest.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

I have one very short final point on the electorate. There has been a great deal of discussion about votes for 16 year-olds. That is a legitimate debate, and I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on this, but I am also concerned about whether we have absolute clarity on Scottish service men and women. I would like the Minister to respond to that. It would be an absolute disgrace if young men and women from Scotland, many of them in the Scottish regiments and who are prepared to risk—and in some cases have sacrificed—their lives, together with their families, were to be deprived of a vote about the future of the very country that they are risking their lives for because they are serving it. They are an integral part of the British Armed Forces. I would like a guarantee from the Minister that under those circumstances each and every one of them—even if no one else—will have a vote and a say in the future of their country. Nobody deserves that more than the people who are prepared to die for it. I hope that we can get that assurance from the Minister tonight.

[Lord Stephen]

My Lords, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord on that issue of service men and women of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland, who should have the opportunity to vote in this referendum. The issue was raised yesterday in the other place in many good speeches on this Section 30 Motion. I listened to a great deal of that debate yesterday, and although there was full cross-party consensus on the approval of the Motion, there was also, outside the nationalists, cross-party concern. That concern is shared by me and by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, as reflected forcefully in his remarks this afternoon, and clearly in the terms of his two amendments. Before focusing on that concern, we should recognise the good points of what has been achieved and of this Motion.

Michael Moore, as Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Prime Minister deserve great credit for delivering the Edinburgh agreement. Michael Moore skilfully negotiated, no doubt with the support of my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General for Scotland, an agreement that all sides agree is a good start, and a good way forward. It has been agreed by the Prime Minister, the Scottish Secretary, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that it is central to the principles underpinning this referendum that it should be legal, decisive and fair.

Let us take those tests in turn. First, it will now be legal, by the securing today of this Section 30 Motion and its approval under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. In my view it was pretty clear, but some would say that it was a matter of doubt whether the Scottish Parliament had the legal powers to hold a referendum on independence. It is clear that those powers had not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that doubt will be removed today by the passing of this order. That is good. Secondly, as has been mentioned by others, it will now be a decisive referendum. There will be one question only. Despite the views, interestingly, of his party, which wanted one question, the First Minister wanted two questions. Clearly, he wanted an escape route. He wanted the cover and protection of a second question on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but that emergency exit is now being removed. There will be a simple yes/no question, which means that the decision will be clear cut. That is also good news.

We then come to the third issue about fairness, on which I want to spend a little time. It has been covered pretty fully already, but it is vital that the referendum is fair if it is to command respect. We already know the SNP-preferred referendum question. We know the question that the Government in Scotland want to ask and it is not fair; it is a biased question. My noble friend Lord Forsyth helpfully quotes it in his amendment, which asks:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.

That is a rigged question on at least two grounds. I am not a great expert on these psephological matters but those who are explain that if you ask people to agree with you—do you like my tie, do you like my new haircut, do you like whatever principle—they will tend to agree in response.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

They do not think about it for two and a half years.

[Lord Stephen]

Indeed. Those who know about these matters say that is the first element of rigging of the question. Secondly, and on this I am more familiar because it is surely a matter of law, and of international law at that, is the issue of whether you want Scotland to be an independent country. The correct question, I am told, is whether it should be an independent or a separate state. That is not the wording that the SNP proposes. Scotland is already a country; some people in this Chamber who are fierce unionists have already said they believe it is an independent country.

I am very pleased that the Edinburgh agreement sets out that the conduct of the referendum is to be overseen by the UK Electoral Commission—not a separate Scottish body—which is seen to be fair and objective and neutral. That is wholly good news. I was also greatly encouraged when I saw John McCormick, who many people in this Chamber will know is the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, being interviewed on this issue by the BBC. He said that it was crucial that the question put to voters was clear, simple and neutral and went on to say, very importantly, that in his view the question was the foundation—the bedrock —on which this referendum would be built. If it was flawed or biased, the whole process would be flawed and biased. I agree with him completely. I do not agree with those who say the question does not really matter and that by voting day everyone will be pretty much clear on what the referendum is about—being in or out of the United Kingdom. It is important that the question is fair and commands respect on all sides from the start.

Some say it would make only a small difference, of maybe 2% or 3% either way. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has referred to the situation in Quebec. Some are saying it would be more than that, some less. Percentages are a curious thing, are they not? If British Airways downgraded its expectations of successful landings at Heathrow by 2% or 3%, international air travel would be killed overnight. If a casino said that a roulette wheel had a built-in bias in its favour of 2% or 3%, I dare say that many gamblers might still take the chance. We should not be gambling, however, with our nation’s future.

Finally, there is the issue of who decides in all of this. Is it the Electoral Commission? No, it is quite clearly the SNP, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament that will decide the question. Can we trust the SNP on this issue? Well, no, because although it is both the player and the referee, it has made clear that the recommendations of the Electoral Commission are not binding on the Scottish Government and Parliament. Angus Robertson, in the House of Commons yesterday, and Alex Salmond, the First Minister, on Radio 4 this morning, have been given ample opportunity to make it clear, as the other leaders in the Scottish Parliament have done, that they would accept the views of the Electoral Commission on this crucial issue of bias and of avoiding anything other than an objective, neutral and fair question.

They have a mantra now, to get them out of the difficult question. The Electoral Commission will advise, says the First Minister. The Scottish Government will recommend and the Scottish Parliament will decide. Of course, as has been said, they have form on these issues of fairness, honesty and integrity—the very recent form that has been referred to, when the First Minister failed to tell Andrew Neil of the BBC the truth about whether he had taken legal advice on Scotland’s EU membership and the Scottish Government then used taxpayers’ money in the courts to resist revealing legal advice that the Scottish Government had never taken. That is the sort of “Alex in Wonderland”, topsy-turvy situation that we are dealing with. There is no honesty, integrity and consistency in a position such as that.

However, there is a deeply serious and worrying point. If this referendum is not based on a neutral question, it will be biased; if it is biased, it will not be fair; and if it is not fair, that will be a breach of the Edinburgh agreement to be “legal”, “fair” and “decisive”. In my view, we will then have a serious constitutional crisis. I trust that can be avoided and that the First Minister can rise above narrow partisanship and set a tone for this referendum that will command all-party respect right across the whole of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. On that basis, we should pass the Motion today, but remain fiercely, ferociously and for ever vigilant about the dangers that lie ahead, which could have such profound implications for both Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom if some of the fears mentioned today come to pass.

Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [HL]

Lord Stephen Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Stephen]

I, too, thank and congratulate the Scottish Law Commission on the excellent work that it has done on this issue. I also thank the Advocate-General and the Scotland Office for all their work over the past few months, since the Scottish Law Commission reported, to bring this Bill forward. It is very important to remember the evening of 31 January 2004 and the shock that there was right across Scotland at that time. We should remember that the 14 people who died were individuals who had a right to expect far better. They were Dorothy McWee, Tom Cook, Isabella MacLachlan, Julia McRoberts, Annie Thomson, Helen Crawford, Margaret Lappin, May Mullen, Helen Milne, Anna Stirrat, Mary McKenner, Robina Burns, Isabella MacLeod and Margaret Gow.

Although nothing could have been done to bring back those who died, the events subsequently have been most unfortunate. It is important that we now take action to remedy the wrong. All three prosecutions failed. Rosepark care home and its partners, Thomas, Anne and Alan Balmer, have never been successfully prosecuted. There is a sense that there has been a real miscarriage of justice here. It is important to remember that in the third and final prosecution, for example, more than 30 charges were on the indictment, including contraventions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, related contraventions of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and 1999, and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997. These were extensive and very serious issues.

Subsequent to the final prosecution, it was decided to hold a fatal accident inquiry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has explained, there were some very serious findings at the end of that inquiry which took place over 141 days. Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart began the fatal accident inquiry in February 2010 and it reported in April 2011. He found that “some or all” of the deaths could have been prevented if the home had had a “suitable and sufficient” fire safety plan. He concluded:

“The management of fire safety at Rosepark was systematically and seriously defective. The deficiencies in the management of fire safety at Rosepark contributed to the deaths. Management did not have a proper appreciation of its role and responsibilities in relation to issues of fire safety”.

He said that the “critical failing” was not to identify residents at the home as being at risk in the event of a fire, as well as failing to consider the “worst-case scenario” of a fire breaking out at night. A further “serious deficiency” was found in the “limited attention” given to how residents would escape from the home in the event of a fire. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has already gone into detail about how Brian Lockhart believes that the lives of Isabella MacLachlan, Margaret Gow, Isabella MacLeod and Robina Burns could have been saved, that there were shortcomings in dialling 999 and that a delay was caused by the fire brigade going to the wrong entrance. In other words, this was not a single fault. As is so often the case with a terrible tragedy, many errors accumulated to create a major disaster.

The gap in Scottish law on this issue has been well explained and the need for action is clear. The role of the Scottish Law Commission has been entirely positive in this. Usually it reports to the Scottish Government and Parliament. It is very encouraging that the matter has been tackled swiftly and positively by the UK Parliament and Government working alongside the Scottish Parliament and Government. There has been no constitutional wrangling on the issue—simply a desire to find a fair and effective solution. The benefit will not be to the deceased of Rosepark or to their relatives. I hope that the latter will take some comfort from the benefits that should come to others in future. It is important to emphasise that it is very unlikely that it will be elderly people killed in a fire in a care home who will benefit from this legislation. However, I believe that many others will benefit through its introduction.

I have a few technical questions and concerns. A number of us have detailed legal questions. Some of us are lawyers or former lawyers. I realise that a lot of hard work has already been done on this by many eminent lawyers, so I hope that all the answers will be easy, sound and solid. Evasion of criminal liability is the main issue that we want to tackle. Clearly it is being tackled as the central pillar of the legislation. I remain concerned about the potential for evasion of any fine imposed following a successful prosecution. I am also concerned that any new partner could become unwittingly liable. The Advocate-General went out of his way to emphasise that the intention was that any new partner should not be caught by prosecution. However, I still worry that liability for a fine could fall—and even fall disproportionately—on a new partner. Perhaps some comfort could be given on that.

Clause 4(1)(b) refers to a situation where,

“the partnership continues to carry on business after the change”.

Why was this felt to be required, and how will we define “carrying on business”? For example, could there be unintended consequences? Could a firm be defined as carrying on business when it was no longer able to trade: for example, if its licence had been withdrawn because of regulatory breaches or if its place of business had been destroyed by fire? Could there be unintended consequences from this wording?

I am interested also in confirming the powers that a sheriff or a judge might have against a partnership. The Bill envisages that the powers would relate only to imposing a fine. Could a judge impose other sanctions? For example, would they have the power to seize or confiscate assets, withdraw licences, and dissolve the partnership or prevent it carrying on trading? The range of sentences, and how they might be enforced against the partnership and against individual partners, is of real interest to me.

I will close with the following thoughts. At Rosepark we know that the partnership, and individual partners, should have been held accountable. We know that the partners were Thomas, Anne and Alan Balmer. It is a matter of huge regret, and a very deep failure of Scotland’s justice system, that there was no successful prosecution. That miscarriage of justice cannot be remedied or changed, but the law can be corrected and put right. That is what we must do.