Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011 (Restrictions on Disclosure of Information in relation to National Security etc.) Order 2015

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011 (Restrictions on Disclosure of Information in relation to National Security etc.) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, the main purpose of this order, which was laid before the House on 18 November 2014, is to confer on the Secretary of State powers in relation to reservoirs in Scotland that are similar to powers that the Secretary of State already has in relation to reservoirs in England and Wales. They will ensure that a coherent national security regime is in place in relation to reservoirs across Great Britain. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative changes to be made in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. This particular order is made in consequence of Sections 9 and 55 of the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011, which I will refer to as the 2011 Act.

The 2011 Act provides for a new regime for regulating the construction, alteration and management of controlled reservoirs in Scotland, particularly in relation to the risk of flooding from those reservoirs. When fully commenced, the 2011 Act will replace the current regime which operates under the Reservoirs Act 1975 in so far as it extends to Scotland.

Section 9 of the 2011 Act requires the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—SEPA—to establish and maintain a public register of controlled reservoirs in Scotland. The register must include, among other things, maps showing areas of land that would be likely to be flooded in the event of an uncontrolled release of water. Section 55 of the 2011 Act provides for the preparation and publication of flood plans for controlled reservoirs. The plan must set out the action to be taken by the manager of the reservoir to control or mitigate the effect of any flooding likely to result from an escape of water from the reservoir.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have the loquacious back-up that my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely had—I am afraid that it is just me. Once again, I thank the Minister’s staff for the very clear notes. I hope that the Minister will be delighted to hear that I entirely agree with every word he said. It is competent, it is realistic; the security will remain. Unfortunately, recent events have compounded such concerns. I know that is not related to why we are here, but it is certainly a very big factor. The only thing I worry about is alerting people to the possibility of doing damage to reservoirs. I know that we cannot hold meetings in camera, but sometimes I wonder whether we should.

Paragraph 10 of the notes sent out by Ms Lopinska says that the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did not draw this piece of legislation,

“to the special attention of the House of Lords. Nonetheless, this issue may come up during debate”.

Well, it is coming up only because I do not understand it. If the Minister were able to help me with that, I would be delighted. Having said that, it is a sensible move, it is quite apt, and it has our full support.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for welcoming this order, and I underline again the fact that we are constantly aware of and sensitive to issues of national security.

The position with regard to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is that it sought further information on this order from the Scotland Office. The committee noted that the order would empower the Secretary of State, if they were of the opinion that the publication of a flood plan or any information relating to a flood plan would be contrary to the interests of national security, to serve a non-publication notice on any relevant person, but that people living in proximity to a reservoir would need to know about a flood plan in the interests of their own safety; therefore, non-publication of a flood plan runs the risk of placing such people in jeopardy. The committee asked whether this was the case and, as there is a wider public interest in such non-publication procedures, why there was no public consultation on the provisions of this order—this is in appendix 2 to the 16th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The Scotland Office provided a response to that point, indicating that flood plans under the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011 are on-site flood plans only. They cover only what the reservoir managers themselves would do in the event of either a potential or an actual controlled release of water from a reservoir. They are not intended to replace off-site emergency response plans. That would be the responsibility of the local strategic co-ordinating group under the civil contingencies legislation. It was noted that full public consultation on the Act was carried out prior to its introduction in the Scottish Parliament, and in addition that regulations will be made under Section 55 of the 2011 Act that will introduce a requirement to produce flood plans, and these will be fully consulted upon. It would appear that, after the information was given in response to the committee’s request, it did not think it necessary to report it to the House—and that, by implication, it was satisfied with the response. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.

Motion agreed.

Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 13, 15, 20 and 27 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 9th and 10th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 December.

Motions agreed.

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, in moving that the draft order laid before the House on 27 October 2014 now be considered, if it pleases your Lordships I will briefly put this Section 104 order in context before setting out what it does. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998—indeed, in that respect it is similar to the first order that we debated in Committee this afternoon—which allows for necessary or expedient changes to legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act.

The order is additionally made under Section 259(1) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Section 259 of that Act provides for subordinate legislation to be made in the United Kingdom Parliament containing provisions in connection with civil partnerships. The order cites this power because it adds some consequential references in legislation to civil partnerships that were missed when the Civil Partnership Act was being implemented. Picking up those missed consequential references is clearly not done as a consequence of the introduction of the 2014 Act in Scotland. That is why the separate provision—namely, Section 259(1) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—is cited.

The 2014 Act introduces same-sex marriage and religious and belief registration of civil partnerships in Scotland. It also allows transgender people who married in Scotland to stay married and obtain a full gender recognition certificate, and it makes other changes to marriage and civil partnership law in Scotland. The order updates existing United Kingdom legislation to give the 2014 Act full effect and ensures similar treatment for Scottish same-sex couples and transgender people across Great Britain. Finally, it also allows for same-sex marriages solemnised in Scotland to be recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.

The 2014 Act is broadly equivalent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which introduced marriage of same-sex couples in England and Wales. That Act, which I shall refer to as the 2013 Act, is being implemented in phases. The first phase consisted of a number of instruments which came into force on 13 March 2014. The final phase of implementation consists of further affirmative and negative instruments primarily concerned with conversion of civil partnerships into marriage and enabling transgender people to remain married if they and their spouse wish. These will come into force on 10 December.

This Section 104 order makes very similar consequential provision for Scotland in relation to reserved matters, such as pensions, similar to that contained in both the first and second phases of implementation of the England and Wales legislation. This is because the 2013 and 2014 Acts enact similar propositions and give rise to similar consequential provision. The order makes consequential provision for same-sex marriages generally in relation to transgender people and provides for the changing of civil partnerships into marriages overseas.

The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments have worked very closely together on the implementation of the 2013 and 2014 Acts and the various subordinate legislation so that they work together as a package. For example, the orders which will implement the second phase of the 2013 Act also make certain consequential provisions for Scotland, including amendments to certain Armed Forces pension schemes, as well as the Royal Mail pension scheme and schemes relating to particular bodies carrying out functions in the area of transport.

Having set out the context and interaction with the implementation of the 2013 Act, I turn to the order itself and will say a bit more about its content. The order amends the Equality Act 2010 as it applies in Scotland to give protection to celebrants and others who do not wish to take part in same-sex marriage ceremonies and the registration of civil partnerships in a way that is appropriate for Scotland.

The order creates a statutory gloss which provides that references to “marriage” and related expressions in the reserved law of Scotland mean both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage, unless contrary provision is made. The order also disapplies that statutory gloss in certain circumstances and makes contrary provision to it.

The order makes provision for civil partnerships registered in Scotland to be changed into marriages overseas, either through UK diplomatic posts or through the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. The order also makes provision so that same-sex marriages registered in Scotland are recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, with respect to provision relating to transgender people, the order establishes the alternative grounds for applications to the gender recognition panel by long-term transitioned people in a protected Scottish marriage or protected Scottish civil partnership who are resident in England or Wales. It makes provision so that the spouse or civil partner of a transgender person who is resident in England and Wales but who has obtained a gender recognition certificate under the 2014 Act can apply to the High Court in England and Wales or the High Court Northern Ireland to quash the decision to grant the application on the grounds that its grant was secured by fraud. It also ensures full recognition in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of transgender people who married or entered their civil partnership in Scotland and obtain a full gender recognition certificate under the 2014 Act.

The Scottish Government intend that their first conversions of civil partnerships into marriage will take place on 16 December; it is also intended that the first same-sex marriage ceremonies in Scotland will be able to take place on 31 December 2014. The order is part of the wider legislative programme to provide for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland within this calendar year. In addition to the legislation taken forward in this Parliament, 11 instruments have been laid to date in the Scottish Parliament, and I understand that a possible 10 more are planned. As part of that programme, the order makes the changes to reserved law and the cross-border provision I described.

Yet again, and particularly in this case, the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments—Ministers and officials—have worked closely together to ensure that this complex programme of work has met its challenging timetable. The order demonstrates that the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work is bearing fruit. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the practical result of this continued collaboration is to be welcomed. The other place considered the order on 25 November. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It is a very welcome measure, if I may say so, and I entirely endorse the point that the noble and learned Lord made about the degree of co-operation between those responsible for legislation north of the border and those responsible for legislation in the wider context of the United Kingdom. It struck me that the drafting, particularly of schedule 1, is of considerable interest—I think that part 1 has been very carefully crafted to make it clear that it deals with reserved matters only, in appropriate language, and does not encroach on matters that are the province of the Scottish Parliament. No doubt that is an example of the degree of co-operation between the two Administrations.

I also found it helpful to see the provisions in paragraph 3 of part 2 of schedule 1, which contains a set of definitions, particularly of the expressions “husband”, “wife”, “widower” and “widow” in the context of the measure. I think that the words as defined are now in quite common use, but it is helpful to see them set out in statutory form. I would be interested to know whether that has been done equally north of the border, but to see it in this measure, at least, is encouraging to those who wondered exactly how these expressions might properly be used.

For the main part, this is an excellent example of co-operation. I was going to ask whether the Scottish Government had been kept fully informed, but I take it from what the noble and learned Lord said that there is simply no question about it: they are well aware of this measure, and if further steps need to be taken by the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government to match what has been done here, they will certainly be taken.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I again express my gratitude to the Minister for his exposition and I do not think that the issue needs any further comments. As a firm supporter of civil partnerships at the time and now, I think that what is taking place is common sense. It is also worth mentioning that many fears and doubts were expressed at the time about religious freedom, but thanks to that common-sense co-operation this order will also protect those of a religious background who do not wish to take part in same-sex marriage and the registration of civil partnerships. I was in favour of that protection then and I am in favour of it now. The order should alleviate fears held among religious communities that there is a slippery road to enforcement, as this makes it clear that there is not. That is to the benefit of everyone who has an opinion on this, no matter whether it is for or against same-sex marriages. This order gives assurance of security and protection, and I welcome that. Again, this is sensible, and co-operation such as this gives devolution a good name. We support the measure.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support for this order expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. As has been said, it is a product of a considerable amount of work.

On definitions, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I am advised that Section 4 of the 2014 Act has a similar table of definitions.

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that, as I said in my opening remarks, one of the functions of this order is to amend the Equality Act 2010, as it applies to Scotland, to give protection to celebrants and others who do not wish to take part in same-sex marriage ceremonies. I recall that I had some responsibility for this area of the 2013 legislation when it went through your Lordships’ House, and the Scottish Parliament has been equally concerned to ensure that proper protection is given.

Again, to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I am sure that the Scottish Government still has to make some implementation orders, but equally the United Kingdom Government stand ready for any further measures. One would hope that the work has been done and that a pretty comprehensive approach has been taken, but obviously if, at some later date, things emerged that were not covered—indeed, part of this order deals with things that were not covered in the implementation of the civil partnership legislation—we would stand ready to undertake the necessary legislation to address that. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, in moving that the draft order laid before the House on 13 October 2014 be considered, I intend to provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014, which for convenience I shall refer to as the 2014 Act.

The 2014 Act establishes Revenue Scotland as the tax authority with responsibility for devolved taxes and puts in place a framework that provides for a range of administrative functions that will apply to devolved taxes. That framework includes: the powers and duties of Revenue Scotland; the rights and obligations of Scottish taxpayers; how tax disputes will be handled; details of time limits, penalties and sanctions; the treatment of taxpayer information; and, provisions relating to tax avoidance. The 2014 Act also makes provision for Revenue Scotland to delegate some or all of its powers to Registers of Scotland in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, and to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in relation to the Scottish landfill tax.

The order will give the 2014 Act full effect. It will establish Revenue Scotland as a part of the Scottish Administration in order that it will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament but independent of the Scottish Government. In order to tackle tax avoidance successfully, the order will make provision in relation to information sharing between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Revenue Scotland. Of course, any information that Revenue Scotland receives from HMRC will be treated as confidential protected taxpayer information, as provided for by Section 15 of the 2014 Act.

The order will also add Revenue Scotland and Registers of Scotland as prescribed persons to the schedule to the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 whilst adding “Scottish landfill tax” to the specified matters in respect of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to ensure the same protection for whistleblowers who assist those bodies, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, as that afforded to whistleblowers who contact HMRC.

Additionally, this order will insert a reference to Revenue Scotland into the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to disqualify members of Revenue Scotland from being Members of the House of Commons.

Yet again a Section 104 order demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and I thank his staff for making sure that I was briefed. I was indeed fully briefed, given the number of items that came my way, but they were all welcome—that is part of transparency.

I have nothing really to add to the clear explanation that the Minister has given other than to comment that this order demonstrates yet again how the 1998 devolution Act is working at a steady pace and with a common-sense approach, with things being devolved or retained as it makes sense to do so. The order also indicates a level of co-operation from the Scottish Parliament that its Members would perhaps do well to publicise more—there is not the friction or arguments every day of the week as might be suggested by some of the SNP people there. There is sensible co-operation, as the Minister has outlined, and this order has our full support.

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, I will set out the situation in relation to the common agricultural policy— for convenience, I shall refer to it as “the CAP”—which this order seeks to address. Under the European legislation that governs the CAP, a “farmer” is defined by reference to a “holding” across the United Kingdom. However, farming businesses often do not fall neatly within Administration boundaries and, therefore, there are a number of businesses with land in more than one Administration within the United Kingdom. This means that the European regulatory reference to a “farmer” is not sufficient to identify those Scottish farmers over whom the Scottish Ministers should have administrative competence. This order will define a “Scottish farmer” as having land wholly or partly in Scotland. Collectively, those businesses with land in more than one Administration are known as “cross-border farmers”.

The system of agricultural support under the CAP was last reformed in 2003-04 to provide income support for farmers. Those arrangements were set out in Council Regulations (EC) 637/2008 and 73/2009. As part of those arrangements, the administrative responsibility for cross-border farmers needed to be resolved. Accordingly, two Scotland Act orders, the Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2004, a Section 30 order, and the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2004, a Section 106 order—I shall refer to them as the 2004 orders—facilitated the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers so that they could administer subsidy claims for Scottish farmers. These orders also tied in with the UK statutory instrument, the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Integrated Administration and Control System) Regulations 2009—I shall refer to them as the IACS regulations—since the EU rules require claims for subsidy to be administered by a single competent authority.

However, the current CAP arrangements come to an end on 31 December this year. The latest reforms for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the CAP are set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1307/2013, which includes repealing Council Regulations (EC) 637/2008 and 73/2009 with effect from 1 January 2015. Therefore, two new orders, in similar terms to the current 2004 orders, are required so that the Scottish Ministers can continue to administer claims as the competent authority under the IACS regulations in respect of cross-border farmers.

This order, to be made under Section 30(3) of the Scotland Act 1998, was laid before the House on the same day as its companion instrument, the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, to be made under Section 106 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Section 106 order is subject to annulment and so is not being considered with this Section 30(3) order. However, to fully understand what Section 30(3) achieves, it is important that Parliament is aware of the Section 106 order and how the orders work together.

This Section 30(3) order will ensure that certain functions should be treated as functions that are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, making it clear that the Scottish Parliament has competence to deal with cross-border farmers. Then the Section 106 order will provide that those functions relating to cross-border farmers may be exercised separately by Scottish Ministers. Ultimately, the two orders will combine, in a similar way to the 2004 orders, to allow the CAP scheme management arrangements to continue when the new arrangements take effect from 1 January 2015. Thus, the Scottish Ministers will be able to continue to administer claims as the competent authority under the IACS regulations in respect of cross-border farmers.

As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, pointed out when he responded to the previous order, this demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work and is a necessary solution to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the competence to deal with cross-border farmers. It is interesting that the previous order was under Section 104 of the Scotland Act and the one that we are dealing with now is under Section 30(3) and Section 106 of the Scotland Act. The next order relates to Section 111 of the Scotland Act. There is a whole series of instruments that are designed to ensure that the devolution settlement works properly. It is a tribute to officials not only in my department and the Scotland Office but probably in this case in Defra and the Scottish Administration, because I am aware of the close co-operation that there has been to bring these orders forward. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered this order on 26 November and the other place will consider it on 17 December. I commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for a clear exposition of how this order will impact on the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and use the good mechanisms of our constitutional arrangements to further strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Noble Lords will appreciate that, when I was a Member of that Parliament for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I represented a number of cross-border farmers as a Borders MSP. There were always ongoing issues with regards to cross-border status.

My query is specific to the context of the radical proposal for land reform that has been outlined in general terms by the Scottish Government, but not in specifics yet. Is the order limited specifically to CAP processing or will it in any circumstances relate to the law of succession of title of cross-border properties? Is this all now within the scope of Scottish Ministers? One has not been able to read in any great detail about the land reform proposals with regard to laws of succession on title for farming properties and land. I wonder whether this will now be wholly for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on, or will that continue to be an area where there are legal aspects for those farming families or the land, both north and south of the border, that remain within the competences of the two Parliaments?

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his clear exposition of what is in front of us. If farmers were facing confusion, doubt or difficulties in any transactions, it is only right that that should be addressed. There are some questions as to why this took so long if those questions had always been raised; nevertheless, this is a good move because it is only right that any extra anxiety, worries or time-consuming matters are removed from farmers and small businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made an interesting point. I thought that he would keep his fire for the third item of business. I thought of raising the matter myself, but it goes beyond the scope of this order. Seeing that someone has raised that issue, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give an answer.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed for the point that he raises, but he will note that the order indicates that the specified functions under EU law relate to European Union implementation of the common agricultural policy. Therefore, the purpose of this order is to allow payments under the common agricultural policy and the IACS system to be made by one Administration within the United Kingdom rather than having a plethora of different applications. The order bears no relevance to issues related to succession and land on either side of the border—or for that matter in such situations in Wales or Northern Ireland. When it comes to matters of succession, the law would apply in the particular jurisdiction in which the land lies. I am not saying that there would not be a lot of political issues around that, but the purpose of this order relates to the making of IACS payments. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 20 October 2014 now be considered. I hope that it will be useful to the Committee if I provide some background information on the fisheries management arrangements that prevail in respect of the River Tweed, as well as a brief summary of what this order primarily seeks to achieve.

Freshwater fisheries management and conservation in Scotland is largely regulated by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2003, which I shall refer to as the 2003 Act. In September last year, an amendment to the 2003 Act came into force providing a new enabling power that allows the Scottish Ministers to create a regime for the tagging of salmon caught in Scotland. The new Section 21A of the 2003 Act provides the power to require salmon that are caught, and retained, to be tagged. The purpose behind the regime is to enhance existing conservation measures for wild salmon and to ensure that fish that are caught in Scotland and find their way to market are traceable.

Although fisheries management is generally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, separate arrangements prevail in respect of the Borders rivers, as these flow through both Scotland and England. Section 111 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides:

“Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for or in connection with the conservation, management and exploitation of salmon, trout, eels, lampreys, smelt, shad and freshwater fish in the Border rivers”.

For the purposes of Section 111, the Borders rivers mean the Rivers Tweed and Esk.

An order made under Section 111 in respect of the Tweed—the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006, which I shall refer to as the 2006 order—is currently in force and broadly replicates much of the 2003 Act. However, existing provisions in the 2006 order do not provide the necessary powers to create a tagging regime. Accordingly, this order amends the 2006 order to introduce a new enabling power to allow provision to be made for the tagging of salmon, which replicates the regulation-making power in Section 21A of the 2003 Act for Scotland.

As a regime for tagging salmon already exists in the Lower Esk in Scotland, by virtue of by-laws made by the Environment Agency, introducing a parallel regime for the River Tweed ensures that similar regulations are in place for all of Scotland’s rivers and will ensure that, when a salmon-tagging scheme is introduced in Scotland as a whole, that scheme can be replicated for the Tweed. The tagging regime that exists in the Lower Esk also exists in England. Therefore, the introduction of a parallel regime for the River Tweed ensures no gap in regulations. Again, this is a practical demonstration of the devolution settlement working and I again place on record thanks to officials in the respective Administrations for their co-operation in bringing this order forward. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered this order on 19 November and the House of Commons will consider it on 10 December. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that it is not a duty, if one has the title of “Tweed”, to speak in everything related to Tweed. Indeed, I am not entirely sure whether I should declare an interest, given the title that I have adopted. I shall not delay the Committee much further. In these matters, one tends to defer to the wise men and women of the River Tweed Commission. After communications with the commission and acknowledgement that this is an enabling power for Scottish Ministers to bring forward details of how it will operate, as part of the ability to promote and recognise the produce from the finest river in the United Kingdom, I see no reason why the Committee should object to this—although other noble Lords with greater affinities for lesser rivers may perhaps have an issue.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

The local Liberals in the west of Scotland will be interested in the denigration of the great River Clyde, which provides employment for tens of thousands of people. I would not be so vindictive as to publicise it—or not much. Again, this is a common-sense measure. There is broad agreement on it and I do not think that anyone disputes that. I am sorry to have to say again—the Minister has already said it and I have said it—that it demonstrates that devolution works with common sense and that action can be taken quietly without any razzmatazz or publicity. The people of Scotland are well served by the 1998 Act and all its ramifications, which allow for measures such as this to take place in a businesslike manner. The order has our full support.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for expressing that support. I just say to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, who would probably have participated when the 2006 order was going through the Scottish Parliament, that perhaps he should be thankful that our noble friend Lord Stephen, of Lower Deeside, is not here, as he may have had something to say about the quality of salmon in our Scottish rivers. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Scotland: Smith Commission

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement to the House about the further devolution process in Scotland and the publication of the heads of agreement resulting from Lord Smith’s five-party talks. As the Prime Minister has already said this morning, we back the agreement and its recommendations and will produce draft legislation in January. The referendum on independence held on 18 September 2014 saw Scotland vote decisively to remain within our UK family of nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, backed by the strength, security and stability of the United Kingdom. The turnout across Scotland was nearly 85% and more than 2 million people made a positive choice for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a joint commitment to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Smith commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September. Lord Smith convened cross-party talks to reach agreement on the proposals for further devolution to Scotland. This process has been thorough and extensive. The party representatives were drawn from the five main political parties in Scotland; the first time ever that all five have participated in a devolution process. I would echo the comments of Lord Smith himself in the foreword to his report. He said:

‘This agreement is, in itself, an unprecedented achievement. It demanded compromise from all of the parties. In some cases that meant moving to devolve greater powers than they had previously committed to, while for other parties it meant accepting the outcome would fall short of their ultimate ambitions. It shows that, however difficult, our political leaders can come together, work together, and reach agreement with one another’.

In preparing the report, Lord Smith heard from a wide range of Scottish civic institutions and members of the public. Over 400 submissions were received from organisations and groups and over 18,000 submissions, including e-mails, letters and signatures to petitions, from people right across Scotland. The Smith commission has today produced a comprehensive heads of agreement ahead of the St Andrew’s Day deadline contained in the timetable set out. This is a significant achievement and is an historic moment for Scotland. I would like to thank Lord Smith and the party representatives for their work. They have worked hard against a challenging timetable covering an enormous area of ground. This work will deliver a substantial package of new powers to the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement provides for a durable but responsive constitutional settlement for Scotland within the United Kingdom. It gives greater financial responsibility to the Scottish Parliament with an updated fiscal framework for Scotland, consistent with the overall UK fiscal framework.

For the first time, over 50% of the money spent by the Scottish Government will be funded by the Scottish Government. This is an important step which builds on the measures brought forward by this Government in the Scotland Act 2012 and further increases the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament to the people of Scotland. The recommendations provide for key welfare measures to be designed by and delivered in Scotland. This will give the Scottish Parliament the tools—and the responsibility—to tackle a range of issues with specific consideration of local circumstances, including those related to social care, long-term unemployment and housing, while continuing to benefit from the strength and stability of the UK-wide system. The recommendations build on the already significant powers of the Scottish Parliament in social justice and a range of other policy areas. Together, these recommendations give greater responsibility for more decisions affecting Scotland to be made in the Scottish Parliament and paid for by revenue raised by the Scottish Parliament.

Further devolution is just one part of this story. People in Scotland were unequivocally clear on 18 September that Scotland should retain the security of being part of our United Kingdom. The Smith commission’s remit was clear—to set out proposals for further devolution within the United Kingdom—and this remit was signed up to by all parties participating in the process, including the Scottish Government. The conclusions reached by the parties ensure a set of proposals that do not cause detriment to the United Kingdom as a whole or any of its constituent parts. The Government are committed to ensuring that Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom continue to prosper from our single domestic market, our social union and the strength that comes from the pooling and sharing of risks. People in Scotland voted on 18 September for the jobs and opportunities that are created by being part of a larger United Kingdom with one currency, no borders and more money to spend on public services in Scotland. People in Scotland want to keep the advantages of a UK pound, UK pensions, UK Armed Forces and a strong UK voice in the world. The package that has been announced today allows that to happen.

As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the Government back the heads of agreement and its recommendations and we will get on with producing draft legislation. The draft clauses will be produced by Burns Night, 25 January, meeting the next phase in our commitment to the people of Scotland. That work begins today. A team has been set up to bring together lead officials in the Scotland Office, HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office. This team will work closely with all lead policy departments within the United Kingdom Government and the team will remain in place ready to deliver a Bill in the UK Parliament following the UK General Election. To support the preparation of the draft legislation I have invited key Scottish stakeholders representing a wide range of different sectors to form a stakeholder group. I will provide further details of the membership and terms of reference of the group in due course, but it is my intention that it will support the Government’s work translating the heads of agreement into the draft legislation that we will publish by 25 January.

As Lord Smith said in the foreword to his report:

‘Through this process I have worked closely with people who can argue passionately with one another while sharing an equal concern and love for their country. I would like to thank them all for their input, challenge and support. I hope that, in the end, they can work together, maintain their energy and use it to create a Scotland which is even stronger and even better’.

Having a more powerful Scottish Parliament inside a strong United Kingdom is the best outcome for the people of Scotland. This is what we voted for on 18 September. Today’s report is an affirmation of the vow that was made in September. It is an historic moment for Scotland. The cause of home rule has been at the heart of Scottish politics since the days of Gladstone. This agreement provides a modern blueprint for Scottish home rule within our strong United Kingdom. Home rule for Scotland can open the door to constitutional reform for the whole of the UK. We can deliver home rule all round”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his remarks, his welcome of this and the commitment of the Labour Party to the implementation of the heads of agreement and recommendations. I pick up what he said about this having been a co-operative and constructive process; that is very much to be welcomed, and I know that there are those in your Lordships’ House today who have the T-shirt from the Scottish constitutional convention and took part in the Calman commission. What was missing from both of those was the engagement of all the political parties in Scotland. It is therefore significant that this is an agreement in which all five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament were involved.

The noble Lord asked me about the timetable for implementation. As has been made clear, there is a commitment that the draft clauses will be available by 25 January, Burns night. The Prime Minister indicated today, and the Secretary of State indicated in the other place, that that is a timetable we intend to stick by. The Secretary of State also indicated that he intends to set up a stakeholder group, which presumably would include political parties but go beyond the political parties for involvement. He said that that group should support the Government’s work in translating the heads of agreement, which I hope again will involve the parties.

I certainly share the view of closer working between Governments and between Parliaments. The Calman commission did a bit of work on that, so some thought has already been given to it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, also recommended that the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament should meet to address some of the issues, not least regarding an explanation of what the powers of the respective Parliaments are. Public education and information is required on that. I think I am right in saying that the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has already set in train a report or some mechanism to look at the way in which the Scottish Executive—the Scottish Government— can be more accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is also worth noting that, whatever seems to play out on the public stage day in and day out, there is very good co-operation between officials in the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and between Ministers, over a whole range of issues. There is a lot of good work to build on.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, this important report brings forward further proposals implementing the three commitments made by the three main party leaders in the final days—some may think that they were somewhat chaotic or even rather panicky days—of the referendum campaign. Does my noble friend agree, though, that the crucial sentence in this report states that,

“rules will ensure that neither the Scottish nor UK Governments will lose or gain financially from the act of transferring a power”?

That is very important but, if that is so, where is the point in transferring some of the VAT revenue to Scotland if it will then be offset by a change in the block grant, which is the obvious implication of that sentence? The other important sentence states:

“The Barnett Formula will continue to be used to determine the remaining block grant”.

Lord Barnett himself said that that formula was defective. Indeed, if it continues in the way in which the report suggests, that will effectively solidify the situation embodied in the Barnett formula, which I believe is unfair for UK taxpayers. We ought not simply to solidify that position.

The Scots Parliament would be given power over income tax rates and allowances. Why should that be any different in Scotland from the UK if it has no implication for the allocation of resources? There is no real reason to believe that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of important issues regarding the tax proposals in the heads of agreement. He is right to draw attention to the fact that there should be no detriment as a result of the decision to devolve further power. What is intended is that at the point of transfer, the value of the tax receipts that have been transferred will be deducted from the block grant. Thereafter, it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine the tax rates and how the books are balanced. Under the Azores judgment in the European Court of Justice we cannot do anything other than that. With regard to VAT, it is obviously in the interest of the Scottish Government to propose policies that will raise the buoyancy of the Scottish economy so that VAT receipts would be greater. Likewise—depending on how well their policies go—the more economic activity, the greater the income tax receipts that they will receive. Of course, the counter is also the same: if they screw it up, the tax receipts are liable to be less and there will be consequences for that, which is an important point of accountability.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, as we make progress with Scottish devolution, as we consider the clauses and as these meetings take place, do we not all agree that it will be understandable if resentment grows in England because of the English democratic deficit? If we can agree the vow effectively overnight, and if the Smith commission can be set up so quickly, why is it that the parties—the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the Labour Party—cannot get together and get the UK constitutional convention up and running as quickly as possible so that we can look at the situation in the whole of the UK in a comprehensive and holistic way?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has regularly put forward the case for a UK-wide constitutional convention. As I said when your Lordships’ House debated these issues on 29 October, the Government will consider proposals for the establishment of such a convention. While it is important that we debate these things, it is also important that we engage with the wider public. Let me make it clear that today’s heads of agreements should not in any way be held up by any constitutional convention, but I am sure that there is no shortage of issues that could be sent to such a convention.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

My Lords, bearing in mind that the Smith commission had only 11 weeks in which to prepare its report, the outcome should be regarded as a useful first step towards further devolution to the Scottish Parliament and Government. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree, however, that since its proposals cannot be enacted before the general election in May, and since the commission itself referred to,

“the additional variability and uncertainty that further tax and spending devolution will introduce into the budgeting process”,

it would be wise for the three parties, in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said, now to set up a commission to appoint a convention involving the public on the future constitution of the United Kingdom? This would enable consideration and analysis of this report to be given by those affected in order to seek a real consensus across the United Kingdom on the Smith commission’s recommendations.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, there is clearly an agenda that could go to a UK-wide constitutional convention. It is certainly not the policy of the Government—nor, I think, of the Labour Party—that the matters in the Smith commission report should be the subject of a subsequent constitutional convention. If we were to do that, we would be accused of breaking the vow. It is not our intention to do that; the intention is to have the draft clauses by 25 January, and that will pave the way for commitments in respect of party manifestos and for legislation to be pretty well ready for the incoming Government after the May election. I know that my noble friend has regularly put forward the case for a wider UK constitutional convention. As I said, and as the Leader of the House of Commons said in a debate on 14 October, there is merit in that idea, given that the British constitution is a living entity. No one will pretend in the coming months that it has reached a perfect form, whatever we decide on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, while the fact that there is an agreement is certainly welcome, the content of the agreement will perhaps prove that allowing 11 weeks to make decisions of this nature is not necessarily the best strategy. I think that in the longer term everybody involved may come to regret putting all the eggs in the income tax basket rather than looking at a spread of taxes.

I want to ask two specific questions of the Advocate-General today. First, given that the assignation of VAT is not the devolution of a power to vary tax, will he, or the Secretary of State, publish the calculation that leads to the claim that 50% of taxation is now devolved to the Scottish Parliament? I cannot see how that calculation has been made. Secondly—partly endorsing the points made by my noble friend Lord McAvoy—the four additional points made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his introduction to the report seem to be almost as important as the actual devolution of more powers. Will the Government give an unequivocal statement of support for those four additional points and do everything they can to support the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, Scottish civic society to ensure that they are implemented alongside the new powers that are now on the way?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I hope that we will be able to set out some infographics—if that is the current “in” word—showing how the tax take of the Scottish Parliament will relate to spending, bearing in mind that the spending of the Scottish Parliament is going to go up as a result of these proposals. The denominator is an important factor in that. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, on the TV broadcast of his announcement this morning. I hope that nobody is going to ask me to remind them what the four points were, but, like the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I thought that they were all very pertinent. They were points that had been made by many people in your Lordships’ House and by others. The one that sticks out in my mind—because it has been a theme in a number of our debates—is the importance of decentralisation generally: that to devolve power from Westminster to Edinburgh is only part of the story. There has to be further decentralisation within Scotland because the last seven years have seen considerable centralisation within Scotland.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very important Statement, which is worthy of longer consideration than a short question period late on a Thursday. I hope that the Leader of the House recognises that we expect a very full debate on this matter in this House.

Will the Minister reply to what I describe as the “Dorking question”? If the Member for Glasgow Central in the other place, who has no control over the taxation affecting his constituents, none the less has the power to affect the taxation of my former constituents in Dorking, how will this be reconciled with any democratic process? It is a topsy-turvy situation. In the 18th century, the great cry was, “No taxation without representation”; the cry today would be, “Without representation, no taxation”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes a point that a number of people and commentators have been making. When we had our debate, my noble friend Lord Lexden said that in the days of Joseph Chamberlain and Gladstone that very issue was being debated in the Irish context. We have gone beyond the stage of saying that the best answer to the so-called West Lothian question was not to ask it. Those days are past, and the Prime Minister said this morning that there will be a publication of proposals on what is now called “English votes for English laws”. I resist using the acronym EVEL, because that might sometimes be a misrepresentation, but a publication of proposals will be out before Christmas and we will wait to see it. It is a proper question and a fair one, but some of the answers are not entirely straightforward.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question in a slightly different Celtic context. He will recognise that detailed proposals are being produced for Scotland. He will also recognise that, in that event, the situation in Wales cannot be allowed to continue as it is at present. I draw attention to two points. First, do the Government have any proposals that they wish to make to the people and the Government of Wales in respect of tax powers being devolved to Wales on a similar basis to those being devolved to Scotland? Secondly, how on earth can the Government justify saying that the Barnett formula should continue to apply? I listened to the Secretary of State making his Statement in the Commons this morning and he said at one stage, “Well, nobody has been able to think of anything better”. Would the Minister care to pass on to the Secretary of State the report of your Lordships’ committee on the Barnett formula? He will find that we went into it in great detail and produced an alternative that, in my submission at any rate, was clear, cogent and practicable, and it would have been effective. For the Government now to accept that the Barnett formula should continue seems to me absolutely preposterous.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is well aware that the Wales Bill, which had a Third Reading in your Lordships’ House on Monday of this week, makes provision for the devolution of tax powers to Wales. They are subject to a referendum, but of course Scotland had a referendum on the principle of tax powers back in 1997. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also indicated that he will produce a reserved powers framework for Wales by St David’s Day. I think someone said that it was just as well that St George’s Day is during “purdah” or we would have yet another commitment for England.

On the question of the Barnett formula, the leaders of the three UK political parties made it clear that the formula will continue; but with regard to Wales—and I am aware of the importance of this, having been the spokesman for the Wales Office in your Lordships’ House for two years—the United Kingdom and Welsh Governments have established a joint process to review relative levels of funding for Wales and England in advance of each spending review. That process is not affected by the commitments contained in the Smith commission proposals.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while of course promises given by leaders must be honoured, and we accept that clauses—which I hope will be debated in this House in detail—will be produced by 25 January, there is a real danger in deadline democracy? There is no situation in politics or any other aspect of life that is not made worse by panic.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I heed what my noble friend says. It is also fair to say that much in the heads of agreement that has emerged today is based on previous work. In my party’s case, it was done by a commission under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell. Proposals came from the work done by the Labour Party. The Conservative Party produced proposals through a committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. So the Smith commission had a considerable volume of work available to it to help to formulate its proposals. My noble friend, and my noble friend Lord Baker, mentioned the opportunity to debate. My noble friend the Leader of the House is here, and the understandable wish for further debate will certainly be taken on board by the usual channels.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very clear Statement by the Minister on the way forward for Scotland. Does he accept that this also provides a great opportunity for all four parts of the United Kingdom to look at how we organise our government, both devolved government between the four parts of the United Kingdom and government of the United Kingdom itself? That is why so many of us say that there needs to be a constitutional convention. If we do not take it forward in that way, there is a real risk that we will drift into making short-term amendments to our constitutional arrangements which do not solve some of the problems that exist not just within England but within Wales and between the four parts of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister is treading a fine line here, but I strongly urge that a constitutional convention is considered as taking an opportunity, rather than leaving the risk that we begin to make back-of-a-fag-packet amendments.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soley, who I know has had a strong interest in these issues and how they affect not only Scotland but other parts of the United Kingdom. I repeat that the Government have made it clear that they will consider proposals for the establishment of a convention. As my noble friend Lord McConnell, who is sitting beside the noble Lord, knows, a convention is not necessarily a quick answer, but nor should it be an excuse for kicking things into the long grass.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I ask the Minister a specific question about air passenger duty. I refer to paragraphs 86 and 95 of the Smith commission report. Paragraph 86 gives the Scottish Parliament the power to charge tax on air passengers leaving Scottish airports, or it can decide to abolish it. That is the existing policy under the Scottish Parliament. However, the abolition of APD in Scotland but not in England would give a huge competitive advantage in the cost of air fares to those flying from Scotland compared to those flying from the north of England. I wonder whether, in line with the no-detriment principle in paragraph 95, the Government have any plans, should Scotland abolish APD, to abolish APD across the north of England.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes an interesting point, which I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury will note. I recall considering APD during the Calman commission. First, there is no guarantee. My noble friend says that the current policy of the Scottish Government is to abolish it or change the rates, but if they reduce one tax, they have to find the money for some of their spending commitments, which are not small, somewhere else. Therefore, I do not think we can necessarily be sure how that power, when devolved, will be used. Many other factors will come into a passenger’s choice of airport other than APD. If one was travelling, let us say, from Hull, I am not sure that one would want to take on the extra journey to go to Edinburgh, bypassing Newcastle, to start a journey. APD is only one part of a passenger’s choice.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Maclennan is right and this is the first step towards devolution—I must say that I thought that we had had a few already and that there are more to come—are not those steps all a ratchet turning in one direction, which is towards the independence of Scotland? Secondly, if we are granting the right to raise income tax in Scotland and, incidentally, corporation tax in Northern Ireland, does that not completely undermine the single currency of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not believe that this is a one-way street to independence—far from it. The majority of the Scottish people on 18 September clearly indicated that they wanted to be part of the United Kingdom. The terms of reference of the Smith commission were that these proposals should be consistent with the integrity of the United Kingdom. The principles agreed by members of the commission were that the proposals had to be in the context of a United Kingdom.

That leads into the second part of my noble friend’s question. With regard to Scotland’s fiscal framework and borrowing powers, the report states:

“Borrowing powers should be set within an overall Scottish fiscal framework and subject to fiscal rules agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments based on clear economic principles, supporting evidence and thorough assessment of the relevant economic situation”.

Therefore, considerable tax powers, including on income tax, the definition of a taxpayer, personal allowances, taxation of savings and investment income, will all still be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. The proposals have to be considered in the context of the remit that was given: to be consistent with maintaining our United Kingdom.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Donaghy have carefully outlined why this clause should not stand part of the Bill, and I very much support the points they have made. I pay tribute in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who made an excellent contribution with some excellent points. All I will say to the noble Lord is, if we do not get the answer he wants today, I hope he will come back to this on Report. If he presses it to a vote, he will find plenty of support on our side of the House and, I am sure, on the Cross Benches as well. This is a very bad clause.

I very much agree with the comments my noble friend Lady Donaghy made about Lord Newton, who would certainly have been on his feet in this Committee and in the Chamber, opposing this, as he did the many other things the present Government brought in regarding welfare.

To remove the duty from the Senior President of Tribunals to produce an annual report on the standard of decision-making by the DWP on appeals to the First-tier Tribunal is a matter of much regret. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will tell the Grand Committee—as his friend in the other place, Mr Vara, told my right honourable friend Mr Stephen Timms, as was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—that it is all to do with the high cost of producing the report and that the development of alternative methods means that getting feedback in is much easier now and it is all going to be fine. I am sure we are going to be told that the introduction of summary reasons for decisions in employment support allowance cases means that judges can explain why a decision has been overturned on appeal and provide feedback to the department in an effective way, and that this is not necessary.

I was going to ask the noble and learned Lord about costs but the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, jumped in and put down a very good Parliamentary Question. I think that the issue of costs has now been shot down completely. We are talking about a very small sum.

My noble friend Lord Rooker also mentioned what went on at the DWP Committee. I saw the comments by His Honour Judge Martin in his evidence to the committee. He pointed out the problems and errors that are repeated year after year, with no sign that anyone in the department takes any notice of feedback from tribunals, and that concerns are just not dealt with.

I think the real reason for the clause is that the report has become an embarrassment for the Government. They want to sweep it away—as my noble friend Lady Donaghy said, this is not transparent—so that the annual assessment is not there and they do not have to look at it or address it. That is a really bad thing to do and they need to come back on that.

If the issue is the £20,000 cost of the report, did the Government look at any other ways that this could be done? Does it have to be a glossy report? Can it not be, as the noble Lord suggested, a more regular communication—a letter, perhaps—where the tribunal could highlight the problems it has seen coming forward? It could be every three months or six months. It could be made public. If the Senior President of Tribunals sees problems, there must be a way for him to communicate that to the department and not just leave it to people who will look at judgments and make a decision. That seems a wholly ineffective way of doing that. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could reflect on that before we come back.

This is a bad clause. Obviously, it cannot be voted on today. I hope that if we do not get an answer today, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will come back to this on Report. As I said, he will have our support.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Kennedy, for their contributions to this clause stand part debate. It is only right and proper that we are challenged as a Government as to why we want Clause 61 in the Bill. I will certainly seek to address the issues and will reflect on the points that have been raised. But there is a good basis for why we might wish to remove this particular, very limited, form of reporting.

Clause 61 repeals a specific and separate duty placed on the Senior President of Tribunals to report annually to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the standard of certain decision-making by the Department for Work and Pensions; namely, decisions whose associated appeal rights are resolved at the First-tier Tribunal: Social Security and Child Support. The duty was introduced in 2007 and replicated an equivalent duty on the then President of Appeal Tribunals, who had produced a separate annual report since 2000.

I cannot agree with the charge that the underlying motivation for this is to reduce transparency. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who made that charge, that in fact Section 15A of the 1998 Act applies only in two other small respects. One is where ministerial responsibility for certain decisions about national insurance contributions by carers was transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The second relates to decisions converting certain previous entitlements to employment and support allowance. Otherwise, there are no other areas in this field where a separate statutory duty applies to the Senior President of Tribunals. It is very limited in its application and I will come on to say why I think there are other measures that are effective and provide for proper transparency, which I agree is important. I am confident that we can remove this requirement in a way that narrows our focus without compromising necessary improvements which previous reports have highlighted and meets the concerns that have been raised should it disappear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am not convinced by the idea that this is some huge burdensome amount of work for the Senior President of Tribunals. If the senior president, having been relieved of this burden if this provision becomes law, picks up on matters that they feel that they need to write to the department about—maybe annually, every couple of years or so on over time—what would the Government’s response be? Would they make that letter public? There may be concerns here that the provision would not address. It would be useful if the Minister could comment on that.

Would the Minister also comment on the £20,000 saved in judicial time? If they took some action on some of the points that have been raised by the tribunals, it might save far more than the £20,000 that is being talked about for this report.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The points that the noble Lord raises are fair ones. He asks what happens if the Senior President of Tribunals has problems reported to him. We have indicated that there is now a process by which the department, through the drop-down menu scheme, does get regular indications of where there are problems, so they can be addressed. As I also indicated in my remarks, if the senior president thought that the DWP was systematically ignoring all of them, or if he thought that he had written a letter to the department and the department was still ignoring it and was not making it public, there is a separate statutory power available to him in paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to lay representations before Parliament—before noble Lords and in the other place—of any,

“matters that appear to him to be matters of importance relating … to the administration of justice by tribunals”.

If he thought that there were systemic problems that were not being addressed and that his representations, or those from others within the tribunal system, were being routinely ignored, there is quite an important provision there which allows him to, as it were, leapfrog the Government and come directly to Parliament.

The noble Lord’s second question was about the £20,000 of judicial time that can be freed up. I am sure that it is not the only thing that can be done and that it does not come at the expense of other things. I am sure that there are many ways in which better decision-making through the mandatory reconsideration process should, hopefully, reduce the number of cases that are going forward and therefore allow such cases as are put forward to be dealt with more speedily. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.

[Lord Sharkey]

Obviously the opinion of the Senior President of Tribunals is very important and has a direct bearing on the debate today. However, because it is important—the Minister has prayed it in aid a couple of times—it is slightly surprising that this opinion did not appear in the Government’s response to the joint committee’s report. I wonder whether the Minister is able to tell me when the Senior President of Tribunals was asked for his opinion on repeal and on the workload of the other tribunal presidents.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If I can I will certainly answer my noble friend’s question. I did ask previously whether it was before we included this clause in the Bill and was advised that that was the case. However, in February 2014, when he published his report, he did say that this particular provision that we are debating was of practical value. Although the Government maybe did not pray that in aid in response to the joint committee, the president did put on the record that he did not think there was much practical value when he reported in February 2014.

Clause 61 agreed.

Scotland: Devolution

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the House has heard a very important and comprehensive range of contributions on complex and interlinked constitutional issues. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to hear such a range of views and perspectives from all parts of our United Kingdom; it has been very important to hear views not just from Scotland but from England, north and south, as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland.

I was delighted to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, in his maiden speech. I understand that he is not only a Newcastle United fan but a participant in the Great North Run. No doubt that will allow him the stamina to take part in debates that go on for the best part of six hours. He summed up a recurring theme of our debate when he talked about the disconnect between politicians and voters that needed to be reduced. He entertained us and he informed us, and I know that the House looks forward very much to his contributions to your Lordships’ House in the future.

As noble Lords will have heard, the issues considered in this debate fall into three broad categories. The first relates to Scotland and the fulfilment of the joint commitment by the three party leaders to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament in light of the referendum no vote. The second category of issues relates to how to ensure that power is properly devolved and decentralised to all the nations, communities and individuals who comprise all parts of our United Kingdom. The third, separately but rightly—not as an alternative to devolution within England—considers how we might address the so-called West Lothian question, which has come about as a consequence of devolving power to specific parts of the United Kingdom.

I will address first the issue of the referendum in Scotland. It was legal and fair in its conduct and decisive in its outcome. It is important that we reflect on the points made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who highlighted the appalling treatment of Nick Robinson in a country which ought to take pride in the freedom of the press and of the media. My noble friends Lord Stephen and Lord Forsyth also highlighted some of the many real problems that were encountered during the referendum. We should not lose sight of these when we think of what kind of Scotland we want to see in the future.

Some noble Lords questioned the fact that the Scottish Parliament devised the referendum. It was important that the referendum was, as it were, made in Scotland. In its immediate aftermath, we heard today of the conspiracy theories that counters at polling stations were filling in blank ballot papers. If the referendum had been devised at Westminster, the view that it was all a trick and a conspiracy would still be echoing loud and clear. The referendum was devised by the Scottish Government—they had everything going for them, and they lost. That is what makes the result decisive.

The people of Scotland expect that the interests of 100% of Scotland within the United Kingdom are taken forward. No one is under any illusion that a no vote was a vote for the status quo or that, somehow or other, we are out of the woods. As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said—I think he spoke for many of us, myself included—our relief has been suffused with anxiety. As the noble Lord said, we are all seeking to achieve a strong and lasting settlement across the United Kingdom.

That is what we intend to do. The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition has already been put into practice. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas sought the reassurance that that would be adhered to. Even those who contributed to your Lordships’ debate, who were sceptical about the commitments made, nevertheless all agreed that it was essential that that promise is honoured. It has been honoured. The Command Paper setting out the parties’ positions was due by the end of October. In fact, it was published two weeks ago. It is continuing to be honoured with the work of the Smith commission. It will be honoured because we have undertaken that the heads of agreement, which we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, announcing, will be taken forward with clauses by Burns Night.

Equally, the Scottish National Party should remember the statements it made ahead of the referendum that it expected it to be a once-in-a generation or once-in-a lifetime event. Nicola Sturgeon, whom I congratulate on becoming, as she will become, the First Minister of Scotland, said one year ahead of the referendum—on 18 September 2013—that this was a once-in-a lifetime opportunity for Scotland. If our parties are expected to honour commitments, the least we can expect is that the Scottish National Party will honour its commitment to the people of Scotland that this is for once in a generation.

The commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September. His terms of reference make it clear that the recommendations will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers, strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Last week, he convened the first meeting of cross-party talks to reach agreement on proposals for further devolution. All 10 nominees from each of the represented political parties attended. The noble Lord has said that they have,

“committed to work together to achieve a positive outcome to this process”.

The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Foulkes, emphasised the importance of this being, as it were, a principles-based approach rather than a horse-trading approach. I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, indicated after that first meeting. The parties have agreed a set of principles which include, but are by no means limited to, forming a substantial and cohesive package of powers, enabling the delivery of outcomes that are meaningful to the people of Scotland, and strengthening the Scottish devolution settlement and the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, including the Parliament’s levels of financial accountability. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lord Glasgow, sought an express assurance that that would be within the context of the United Kingdom honouring the outcome of the referendum. There is also a principle that it will not cause detriment to the United Kingdom as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts.

However, this process is not just about the parties. The referendum saw an opening up of civic engagement, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has made it clear that he wants to hear from all the various groups to ensure that the recommendations that he produces are informed by views from right across Scottish society. By St Andrew’s Day, he intends to publish heads of agreement. As I have indicated, the Government are committed to turning these recommendations into draft clauses by Burns Night 2015. It is a demanding timetable but that is because the demand is there, in Scotland, to see change delivered, and it is a demand that we intend to meet.

Scotland will have further powers but we believe that that must be within the context of Scotland being a part of the United Kingdom. It must not start to unravel the fabric that binds us together, because that would be a denial of the outcome of the referendum. However, I very much share the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Elder, that the exercise of these powers is vital to the whole range of devolved responsibilities. It would be very refreshing to get the political debate back on to how we improve education, health, transport, agriculture, sport and local government in Scotland.

Not surprisingly, the question of funding was raised. I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who referred to the “ATM approach”—a point reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—where there has been spending by the Scottish Parliament without responsibility for raising the funding. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed highlighted that fiscal responsibility gap. One of the objects of those who served on the Calman commission—as I did, along with my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, and the noble Lord, Lord Elder—was to address that and to ensure that there was greater accountability for spending. Therefore, with the additional tax powers come additional responsibility and accountability.

We have been clear as a Government that the act of devolution in and of itself should not result in a change in the budget, but it is important to note that this is also one of the key principles highlighted by the Smith commission. However, we have been equally clear—this addresses a point raised by my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market—that if decisions are taken by the Scottish Government which result in a lower tax yield than the current arrangements, the Scottish Government will have to take spending decisions in line with that reduced tax yield. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will put me right on this but I think that the Azores judgment means that where tax is fully devolved and there is a shortfall, it cannot be topped up.

The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord McAvoy, made the point that, as more tax-raising powers are devolved, the amount of money transferred to Scotland under the Barnett formula will decline.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can my noble friend just deal with the point in the so-called vow where it says that our resources will be shared,

“equitably across all four nations”?

How is that consistent with keeping Barnett? Can he also deal with the notion that, by giving the Scottish Parliament more tax-raising powers, Barnett can be phased out? If the tax base in Scotland is lower than the uplift in the Barnett formula, compared to the average for the United Kingdom, how will that gap be filled?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, an important issue which was always there but was articulated well, not least by the former Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, in the latter stages, was the notion of the social union; the equitable arrangement within our United Kingdom where, if one part of the kingdom is thriving, there is a transfer of resources to a part that is not doing so well. That is one of the important things that binds our United Kingdom together and I see that as an equitable distribution of resources within it.

[Lord Turnbull]

I query why a country which claims to be more prosperous than the United Kingdom as a whole is the recipient of the highest transfer compared with Wales, which is the poorest part but receives a much lower transfer. That cannot be equitable.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, quoted very accurately the words used in the statement in the Daily Record. As I indicated to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, with all his success in getting more money, it is the base line that is applied. With regard to Wales, it is understood and recognised—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

If the Minister will give way I will, for the information of the House, quote from the public expenditure statistical analysis by the Treasury in 2013 which shows that in 2008-09 the DEL resource grant, which may well be considered the transfer, was 7.7% of all of the grants for that year. The plans for 2015-16 are 7.96%, which is below the population share for Scotland. The point has been made about how you would balance that grant with the further tax powers. This is the work of the fiscal federalism principles of looking over a 10-year profile over economic cycles to make sure it is a balanced and fair proposal. The Strathclyde commission did it; the Liberal Democrat commission did it. There is work being done to inform this quite considerably.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, with respect to my noble friend who I know has studied it in great detail, I hesitate before going down the line of a 10-year fiscal federalism profile. I was about to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, with regard to the Supreme Court. The Scottish National Party has made a specific proposal. It would be wrong to second guess the Smith commission, but on the noble and learned Lord’s point about the role of the Supreme Court, if you have got a single market you should have a common set of principles and legal interpretation. This is very important and, as he will be well aware, both my own department and the Scottish Government established working groups during the passage of the Scotland Act 2012 to look at the role of the Supreme Court with regard to devolution issues. These are now compatibility issues and I hope that the Smith commission will have regard to that work, as both working groups reached very similar conclusions. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The commitment to deliver further powers for Scotland is of course in keeping with this Government’s record in decentralising power. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has indicated, this Government have made huge progress in devolving both responsibility and funding for schemes to a local level. Local enterprise partnerships and the ambitious city deals programme, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, are clear examples of our commitment to empowering local leaders to take decisions which best fit local circumstances and needs.

That is a demonstration of open-mindedness about how more powers might be devolved. We certainly do not believe that power should be hoarded at the centre but that it should be devolved to the nations, communities and individuals that will benefit from it. I was struck, in the course of our debate, by the very important contributions from those with a rich experience in local government: the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Leigh and Lord Beecham, and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Tope. They shared very constructive ideas with your Lordships’ House as to how we might improve existing arrangements, what new ones might be made and how powers might be used more imaginatively in our communities, our cities and those parts of the country which are not immediately connected with a major city. That is clearly an agenda which must be pursued as we go forward examining a whole range of constitutional issues.

With regard to other devolution of power within England, my noble friend Lord Dobbs referred to Walter Scott and the path to the Highlands and the danger for an Englishman. Treading into devolution for England by a Scotsman is almost as dangerous. I always tread very carefully indeed. From what was said this evening, it is very clear that this is something which should be addressed. As I indicated earlier, this is not an alternative to the so-called EVEL; it is a both/and rather than an either/or.

As my noble friend Lord Greaves, the northern home-ruler, said, there is no consensus in England as to where we might go. There must be an opportunity for further debate. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, made a very clear case for greater devolution within England. He said that the regions of England had to be consulted as to where they might go. There are proponents of regional government throughout England. There are difficult issues over the possibility of the creation of extra layers of government. There have been advocates of a separate English Parliament, although that raises questions over location and composition, and whether it would be any more decentralised than the present arrangements. While in Scotland there was a settled role of the Scottish Parliament, the picture in England is less clear. My noble friend Lord Tyler indicated that my own party advocates provisions of flexible and responsive devolution on demand. There is a wider debate to be had. My noble friend Lord Shipley set out a strong, healthy agenda for such a debate.

[Lord Blencathra]

The latest polls show that 78% of people in England favour English votes for English laws. That seems fairly like consensus to me.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was coming on to the question of English votes for English laws. I do not believe that English votes for English laws is an answer to the whole question of devolution within England; I think that that point is accepted. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, it is not a question of if—it must be a question of how. Moving on to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and numerous contributors to the debate with regard to English votes for English laws, I was going to say, “Over the last few weeks,” but my noble friend Lord Macgregor reminded us that the issue was live when he entered the House of Commons in 1974 and my noble friend Lord Lexden reminded us that it was live when Mr Gladstone and Joseph Chamberlain were in the House of Commons. This matter has generated debate and questions for well over a century. The welcome transfer of powers to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the London Assembly, and the prospect of further devolution have created not just an anomaly but a complex one. The asymmetric devolution of powers to these bodies makes the issue of which MPs’ constituents are affected by which laws a highly varied one. It is not a simple question with an easy answer, but we nevertheless should seek an answer, as my noble friend Lord Macgregor said. It is a question of fairness.

Each of the three main UK parties in the United Kingdom Parliament has expressed its views on the West Lothian question. This House has considered the issue. We have had the views of the McKay commission and reports such that of the democracy taskforce. My right honourable friend David Laws has noted that a grand committee should be appointed proportionately to vet laws that will apply only in England, joined by Welsh MPs when matters affecting Wales are debated.

The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned that Bills have a territorial extent. I know that my own Office of the Advocate General looks at all Bills with regard to whether legislative consent Motions will be required in Scotland. It can be complex. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill in which I took part is an example that was referred to by my noble friend Lord Greaves. Although my noble friend Lord Blencathra said that it could be relatively easy, I remember when the legislation was going through the House of Commons with regard to the increase of tuition fees under the Labour Government. When that passed, I was the Minister with responsibility for higher education in Scotland and I knew full well that that had far-reaching consequences for Scotland, which led to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. It is not always easy. This matter deserves careful consideration.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. Will he deal with the point that I raised that, for more than 300 years, until 1999, all Scottish legislation—on education, on health and on the legal system—was dealt with by this Parliament by a majority of English, Welsh and Northern Irish Members?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is right. That was one of the reasons we established the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter which I think ought to be addressed—and far better that it be addressed where there is cross-party working and consensus-forming. That was the basis on which we established the devolved Administrations, and I do hope we can work on a cross-party basis to address this important issue as well.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

On the EVEL issue, is the noble and learned Lord content—I do not wish to try to put fissures in the coalition—that the committee that has been set up by Mr William Hague, of which the noble Baroness is a member, is a committee of people from Westminster behind closed doors looking for a quick-fix solution? Is the noble and learned Lord himself content with that as a way forward?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my experience is that Cabinet committees tend to be that. They are Cabinet committees. However, as we have experienced in this debate, the debate is not confined to those members of the committee. It would be very helpful if there were contributions from not just the two coalition parties, which, as the noble Baroness points out, are not entirely at one in this, as the article by my right honourable friend David Laws has shown. It would be very healthy if we had views, not only from the other political parties but others as well.

[Lord Cormack]

I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend. A variety of views on English laws have been expressed in the debate. But surely one message has come through very clearly: people do not want to rush this. Many people who have made this point have also said that this is an appropriate subject for a commission or a convention.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we are not just going to park it. I was coming on to the very point that my noble friend makes about the convention. I have a whole list here—I am not going to read it out—of noble Lords who have talked about a convention—that constitutional change should be achieved through a convention. I make it clear that the Government will consider proposals for the establishment of such a convention because, while debate is needed in both Houses, it is important that we engage with the public as well. We should not simply be continuing our constitution behind closed doors, if that is what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition was suggesting. We must listen to other people’s views and opinions on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said it should not be a top-down approach. Many of us would accept that view.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord wishes to finish, but, that being the case, that the Government are open to having a constitutional convention, which is extremely welcome, why is it that they are bent on taking a decision on EVEL before the general election and before a constitutional convention has been set up?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

A view has to be taken on some issues. My noble friend Lord Maclennan has been an advocate of a constitutional convention probably longer than anyone else I can recall. He was perhaps suggesting that the proposals that might emanate from the Smith commission should go to a constitutional convention. I believe there are some things which cannot wait and to try to do that would give rise to allegations of bad faith. We have heard in our debate a whole range of issues which a constitutional convention should raise. My noble friend Lord Steel talked about the role of the second Chamber. Should it be a second Chamber that reflects the different regions and nations of the United Kingdom? The noble Baroness herself mentioned votes at 16, which would be an important constitutional change, one which, again, I think is ripe for debate. It is important that we respond to the suggestions and concerns raised. Our structures need to be responsive to that.

In conclusion, the United Kingdom is the strongest family of nations the world has ever seen. My noble friend Lord Thomas reminded us of what Mr. Gladstone said—that home rule must be in the heart as well as in the law. Many of us feel that it is something that is in our DNA and in our hearts. Together we have made remarkable discoveries and inventions, delivered changes that have improved the lives of citizens not just in the United Kingdom but globally. Together we have one of the most stable currencies in the world. Through our strong internal trade links, we create jobs across the United Kingdom. Together, we make our savings and our pensions more secure. These are valuable things. They should perhaps have been said better and more often during the campaign, but I think that they did actually get through. We must remember that the people of Scotland at the end of the day voted to remain together in the United Kingdom. It is important that we engage not only the people of Scotland as we go forward but that we recognise that the referendum campaign threw up some important issues, not least the disconnect that so often exists between the people and those in power. That is an important issue that has to be addressed.

I am sure that we agree that we should try to do this with the maximum degree of consensus. Perhaps the watchword for us all is to deliver a strong and lasting solution for all the United Kingdom.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2014

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft order laid before the House on 7 July be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 October.

Motion agreed.