Wales: Council Tax

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that funds allocated to the Welsh Government to enable them to freeze council tax rates are used solely for that purpose.

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

My Lords, the Welsh Government have received a £38.9 million increase to their departmental expenditure limit in 2011-12. As is usual practice, it will be for the Welsh Government to decide how to use this additional funding.

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

But does my noble and learned friend think that it is right that nearly £40 million allocated by our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Welsh Assembly’s Labour Government specifically to enable them to freeze council tax should deliberately not be applied to that nationwide purpose for the second year running, with the result that over a million Welsh households are to be deprived of a substantial sum when they are facing the fastest rise in living costs for 20 years?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I can readily understand where my noble friend is coming from in asking that question. The consequentials were made available because of the funding made available in England to freeze the council tax to help hard-pressed families. Indeed, many Welsh families might wonder why they are the only households in Great Britain that will not be having their council tax frozen. But the essence of devolution in the Acts that were passed by this Parliament in devolving power to Wales, including power over local government finance, means that it must be a matter for the Welsh Ministers and for the Welsh Assembly to determine what their priorities are. Importantly, Welsh Ministers will be accountable to the Welsh Assembly for their spending decisions and through the Assembly to the people of Wales. That is where the proper accountability should lie.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that while the Barnett formula may have been fairly generous to Scotland, it has been shown to be some £300 million light in Wales in meeting the level of expenditure to keep services up to the same standard as in other parts of these islands? Given that, is it not totally reasonable that the Welsh Government should use these resources to spend on health and education, which are very much in need of further resources in Wales?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I made clear in answer to my noble friend on the consequentials and the block grant given to the Welsh Government, it is a matter for the Government there to determine their priorities and to be accountable for these priorities. If they choose to spend it on health and education, they will clearly be accountable for that expenditure. Separate bilateral discussions are continuing between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on all proposals arising from the Holtham commission, including the idea of a funding floor and the commission’s wider proposals for reform.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, at a time when we are debating the Scotland Bill, which gives greater autonomy and freedom to the Scottish legislature to decide its own spending priorities, would it not be paradoxical for us to be restrictive and prescriptive in the case of Wales?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I indicate to the noble Lord that the Government are not being prescriptive. They recognise that the consequentials that were made available are for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to determine. While additional powers are being conferred on the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Scotland Bill, the noble Lord will be aware that there has been recent agreement to set up the Silk Commission, which will look initially at the financial accountability of the Assembly and, having reported on that, move to looking at its powers.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the years go on, the strains imposed by the Barnett formula are beginning to show in the Welsh financial settlement? As a result, for example, education in Wales receives £600 less funding per pupil per year than in England. Would that not be a good way in which the money concerned could be spent?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure that the Welsh Government are getting plenty of helpful suggestions as to how that money might be spent. I sat in on the debate on the Barnett formula initiated earlier in the year by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and listened carefully to it. The Government have made it clear that their priority is to reduce the deficit and get our public finances in order. Therefore, any change to the system of devolution funding must await stabilisation of public finances. However, as I have already indicated, separate bilateral discussions are continuing between the Government and the Welsh Government on the proposals arising from the Holtham Commission.

[Lord Trimble]

I presume that there was a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland as well. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister tell me how much that payment was and what it has been used for?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that the amount was £22.6 million. I regret that I do not know how the Northern Ireland Assembly chooses to use it, but the same principle would apply: it must determine its own priorities and be accountable to the people of Northern Ireland for them.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, to return to the council tax freeze, why is it acceptable to freeze council tax in England and Scotland—and in Wales, if it chooses to spend it that way—to the tune of £800 million, so that every Member of this House has their council tax frozen, while, outside this House, the poorest will see their council tax benefit cut by 10 per cent?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the Government indicated that this was an area of UK Government underspend which we were able to use to help support hard-working families with their council tax. I think that it has been widely welcomed that the council tax has been frozen in England; indeed, the Scottish Government had already decided to freeze it in Scotland. With the resources that are available, I think that it will be of benefit to a considerable number of households throughout Scotland and England. It is up to the Government of Wales to determine whether they will wish to follow that. Interestingly enough, in announcing the local government settlement, a Welsh Minister, Mr Carl Sargeant, indicated that local authorities in Wales would have to consider the balance between the need to sustain key services for their citizens’ benefit and the need to limit any financial pressure on hard-pressed households. Even devolution of local responsibility within Wales might lead to some places there getting a council tax freeze.

EU Committee: Court of Justice of the European Union

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I join the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Anderson—the three of us not being members of the committee—in congratulating my noble friend Lord Bowness and the members of his committee on this important work which they have undertaken. I think the first call for evidence was in the summer of 2010 and that the report was published just one week after the president of the Court published his proposals. The fact that it was timely shows the foresight of the committee in identifying what is undoubtedly a very important issue.

I believe that the report’s conclusions and recommendations have been a valuable contribution to the current debate. We have heard those conclusions and recommendations echoed in the contributions this evening, which I will seek to address. It is important that we take this opportunity to discuss these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked what the Government believe in. They believe very much in the effective and uniform interpretation, application and enforcement of European Union law across the Union, which was a point well made by my noble friend Lord Bowness in his opening remarks.

We believe that the Court of Justice has a vital role to play in ensuring that member states and European Union institutions act in accordance with the treaties. It is therefore essential to the functioning of the single market that it ensures that there is a level playing field for United Kingdom businesses operating in other member states, and vital in upholding the rights under European Union law of British citizens living and working in other member states. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Dykes, who emphasised that the Court has that important role in safeguarding the rights of people who are not only United Kingdom citizens but citizens of the European Union.

Accordingly, the Government share your Lordships’ views that the Court of Justice of the European Union is in need of reform in order to work through its sizeable backlog of cases and to reduce the time taken to process cases in the future. I can confirm that since the publication of the committee’s report, officials have been engaged in discussions with their counterparts in the European Union about reform of the Court, following on a set of six recommendations made by the president of the Court to the Council. Discussion has continued between officials and at ministerial level on a bilateral basis and within the Council. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, asked about that. I can confirm that there have been meetings. In July, the Minister for Europe raised the issue at the General Affairs Council. As I have indicated, discussions continue at a working level, most recently on Friday of last week. The Government are engaging constructively in these meetings with an open mind. We certainly see merits in a number of the recommendations, to which I will deal with in more detail.

I am sure your Lordships’ House will forgive me for not divulging the details of working group discussions, which by their very nature are confidential, but I can indicate in the broadest terms that officials of the United Kingdom Government have been focusing on negotiating changes to the Court’s structure and its rules of procedure, which would enhance the quality of the Court’s judgments and reduce the turnaround time of cases while emphasising—it is important to emphasise this and to remind ourselves of the need for—cost efficiency. In the current economic climate, it is vital to ensure value for money for our taxpayers, and the proposals that the Court makes must be assessed according to financial and budgetary implications. Indeed, I think that even the summary of the conclusions of the committee’s report acknowledged that there were cost implications.

As the debate has made clear, the most significant reform under discussion is the composition of the General Court and specifically the question of how to expand its capacity. I will perhaps deal with that in more detail later. We know that the committee proposed an increase of one-third to 36 members. The president of the Court has tabled a proposal to add to the number of members of the General Court by 12 judges, which is of course one of the key subjects under discussion within the Council. As has been identified, and as I will elaborate, there are other possible options, such as the creation of a specialist trademark court or specialist chambers within the General Court, for managing trademark cases. Officials are considering how each would improve the efficiency of the court, the political and legal implications that they would have and the financial ramifications.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked whether there was an imminent crisis. Although we recognise the huge challenge with regard to the General Court, the report itself, as well as contributors to the debate this evening, recognises that the Court of Justice has done a remarkable job in managing its case load. It was in that context that we did not accept that there is an imminent crisis with regard to Court of Justice—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said “potential crisis”. Clearly this is something that we want to focus on to ensure that it continues to build on the advances that it has made.

The report itself recommended that there should be the appointment of extra Advocates-General. It is not clear what evidence this is based on. Significantly, it is not one of the proposals which the Court itself felt was necessary when the president of the Court put forward its proposals. Other measures have come forward from the president of the Court that we would aim to assist: the possibility of the appointment of a vice-president, and the proposal with regard to how grand chamber might be restructured. We are looking at that seriously. We want to ensure that, in doing so, there is continuity, across the courts, of the jurisprudence of the Court. That particular proposal is somewhat complex.

On the issue that was described in your Lordships’ report as the “green light”, we would not necessarily go as far as that but we think it is of considerable importance, when national courts are framing their reference, that they do so concisely. We would certainly encourage them to put forward any proposal and conclusions that they may have reached in framing that reference, so that when the Court of Justice looks at these preliminary references it is very focused on the particular issues.

My noble friend Lord Bowness made some specific points, reminding us that the Council also legislates. Those points were extremely well made. Certainly the Government are seeking to ensure that there is clarity not only for those who subsequently have to interpret the law in the courts but perhaps most importantly for those who have to implement the law in their businesses and daily lives. That is certainly the objective of the negotiations, but I think it is also fair to say that, in a negotiation involving 27 member states, that objective is not always as easy to achieve as one might hope.

A similar answer applies to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, and my noble friend Lord Bowness about the legislative implications of certain decisions. Perhaps that should not be a counsel of perfection. It ought to be given attention, but again I suspect that that is easier to say, and to make exhortations for, than it is to deliver in the legislation itself.

[Lord Rowlands]

Does the noble and learned Lord accept the fact that, as a result of the change in jurisdiction, there is going to be a very considerable increase in fast-tracking procedures within the Court of Justice and that this will have very considerable consequences for the rest of its workload?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord raised the point about the possibility, post-Lisbon, of fast-tracking and asked whether there was going to be a significant increase. There are issues there which need to be considered. There is not yet any evidence of that coming through, but it is not something to which we are turning a blind eye. According to the Court of Justice’s report on its work in 2010—after the Lisbon Treaty came into force—the use of the urgent preliminary measure in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice was requested in six cases, and granted in five. It is of course relevant to the work of the Court of Justice in its consideration of preliminary references, which is its other main volume of work. It is less relevant in the case of the General Court, which does not do that kind of work. I shall come onto that, as there is agreement across the House that there are quite clearly issues as regards the work of the General Court.

We fully recognise that there are issues that need to be considered in terms of the particular problems which the General Court is facing. Justice delayed is justice denied: it is a phrase which trips off the tongue, but it is one with substance and truth. The position of the General Court is one to which we are giving our attention. The proposal on the table is the one that has come from the President of the Court. It is that there should be an increase in the size of the Court by nine. The House has reasonably asked about our position with regard to the consideration of a specialist trademark court or specialist chambers within the General Court. We see merit in the proposal put forward by the committee of your Lordships’ House of increasing the number and we are considering it against our basic criteria of quality of judgments, their timeliness and cost-effectiveness. That is why we are not ruling it out, but why we also believe that some of the other options ought to be given consideration too.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, referred to the letter sent on 4 July by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He pointed out that while he recognised the point that judges on a specialist tribunal may not be widely deployable, creating a specialist tribunal would free up judges in the General Court currently working on trademark cases to deal with other types of case. It is important to note that judges currently dealing with trademark cases, which form a substantial part of the General Court’s work, would be freed up for other work. The Commission itself said in its response to the President’s proposals, published at the end of last month, that it has looked at the possibility of specialist chambers within the General Court. It is important that these options are fully explored with regard to what will deliver the best in terms of efficiency, speed and quality of judgment.

However, as I have indicated, we cannot ignore the question of finance. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Dykes that in the totality of the European Union budget it may appear a small matter, but nevertheless it is the Government’s position that there should be no increase in real terms over the next spending period. We want to examine the costs of the different options. The estimate of the Court itself on an increase of 12 judges is some €13 million. We would want to drill down on that and ask why the cost is more than €1 million per extra judge. We would also wish to look at the fact that the Court has had over the past year an underspend of €5.5 million. It is not unreasonable, in exploring the different options, to bear in mind the costs and to try to ensure that we not only achieve what is best in terms of speed of delivery, but also that there is efficient use of taxpayers’ money—not just that of British taxpayers, but of taxpayers throughout Europe.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, said, we recognise that delay sometimes brings its own costs, and that must be part of the equation, but we feel that considerably more work could be done, not least given the fact that there was a €5.5 million underspend of the Court’s budget last year. Obviously, as the committee itself indicated, it may be possible to find funds by deprioritising other parts of the budget.

I hope I have emphasised the fact that the Government take this issue seriously. We appreciate the constructive proposals that have been put forward. As I have indicated, we are not ruling out the possibility of an increase in judges. At the present time, the proposal on the table is for an extra 12 judges, which has come from the President of the Court. We are giving these matters detailed consideration through working groups and at ministerial level. We are also conscious that the outcome in the end should be to ensure that the Court of Justice, as one of the institutions of the European Union, delivers and serves the wider purposes both of the Union itself and of European citizens. They should be on the receiving end of justice when the call comes for it. I hope that I have reassured your Lordships that we are taking this matter seriously and working diligently to get the right outcome in terms of speed, quality and cost-effectiveness.

Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Modifications of Enactments) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Modifications of Enactments) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

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

My Lords, the draft order was laid before the House on 14 July 2011. Perhaps I may provide a brief explanation of what the order seeks to achieve.

The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998—with which Members of the Grand Committee have become familiar—and allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. This order is made in consequence of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010—which I shall refer to as the 2010 Act—and secondary legislation made under it.

The Merits Committee of your Lordships’ House reviewed this order and has not noted it as being of special interest. The 2010 Act made provision for the reduction and simplification of public bodies in Scotland. The overarching purpose of the Act was to simplify and streamline the public bodies landscape in Scotland with the aim of delivering improved public services and better outcomes for the people of Scotland.

The 2010 Act dissolved the Deer Commission for Scotland and transferred its functions to Scottish Natural Heritage. It also dissolved the Scottish Arts Council, transferring its functions, and those of Scottish Screen, to a new public body called Creative Scotland. The Act dissolved the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. Its functions in care service scrutiny, the functions of the Social Work Inspection Agency, and the child protection functions of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland were transferred to a new public body called Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland.

The functions of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care concerning independent health care scrutiny and NHS scrutiny functions that were previously exercised by the special health board, Quality Improvement Scotland, were transferred to a new public body called Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

The 2010 Act also made provision to dissolve the water customer consultation panels and abolish the position of convener of those panels. This order will ensure that United Kingdom legislation is updated to reflect the changes made in the 2010 Act. It will ensure that United Kingdom legislation can continue to operate when it interacts with the new devolved legislation and makes provision, as necessary, in relative enactments for the newly established bodies and procedures. For example, the order ensures that the Health and Social Care Act 2008 is updated to ensure that obligations on care home providers to comply with certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 continue to apply where the care home is in Scotland. The order also ensures that the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are updated so that a care home manager who is providing care to a resident in respect of that resident’s disability can continue to attest to and sign that resident’s application to vote by proxy.

The modifications made to existing legislation by the order are of a technical nature. However, by the very fact that they are United Kingdom pieces of legislation, it is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to amend them. The modifications are required to ensure that existing legislation continues to operate effectively, by recognising the modifications that have been made to various pieces of legislation by the 2010 Act and subordinate legislation made under it. The order demonstrates this Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope the Grand Committee will agree that this order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical result is to be welcomed. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, this order appears to be uncontroversial and is before this Committee only because it is required to have an affirmative resolution. The only question I wish to ask is whether in the case of orders of this kind, which are not designed to amend the legislation, save—as my noble friend, the Minister, has said—to reflect, in a technical sense, the consequences of legislation by the Scottish Parliament, it might make sense, for reasons of expedition, to amend the Scotland Act to enable the measures to be incorporated in negative resolutions rather than affirmative resolutions. The Minister clearly explained that there is no issue of policy at stake here other than the maintenance of the status quo. As the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not raised any matter about drafting or anything else, there is every reason to believe that this is an acceptable instrument. We now frequently see consequential legislation brought forward for extensive debates and this does not seem to be strictly necessary, bearing in mind the pressures on the United Kingdom Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, can my noble friend clarify a couple of points? I listened to him but did not catch the fact that a couple of Welsh measures have wandered into the Bill. It is very interesting to see them in there. Can he reassure us that the Welsh paragraphs are an exact translation of the previous ones, because my Welsh is not up to understanding them? How many times has this Parliament passed measures in Welsh?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for their contributions to this debate. Although technical, the points they raised are important. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Maclennan that a similar thought crossed my mind as to the necessity for this. The truth of the matter is that it is specified by the Scotland Act that some orders under it can be approved by way of negative procedure, but when dealing with amendments to primary legislation, Parliament in its wisdom in 1998 thought that that should be done by affirmative order. Indeed, it would be invidious to decide which ones were or were not controversial. On the previous order we considered there was agreement on all sides that it nevertheless related to changing the powers of officers of the UK Border Agency and HMRC with regard to periods of detention, which is a substantive matter. It might be invidious to try to make judgments as to which orders are controversial and which are not when they all come under the same Section 104.

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, it is perfectly proper that he should be aware and alert—as he said, he was not called Thomas for nothing. I can assure him that as far as I am aware, and as far as we could trace, no body involved in this order would be involved in elections or referendums. One could perhaps use one’s imagination as to how Creative Scotland could be creative. However, strictly speaking, no body would have responsibility for the running of a referendum or election—subject to the example I gave in respect of care home managers. However, the important point is that the order updates the situation that already existed. The noble Lord’s other point was about court officers. I am advised that under the order, none of them would have a role to play in election work.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose raised a question about Welsh measures. I am assured that it is an exact translation—although I have to say that I have to take it on assurance because I do not speak Welsh. It is probably a Measure of the Welsh National Assembly that is referred to here. Regarding some of the reciprocal arrangements between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, what has been done in Scotland has implications in Wales. If the Welsh legislation is in Welsh, the amendment to it has to be in Welsh also. That is the explanation. As I said, I take that on trust because, regrettably, although I speak in this House for the Wales Office, I do not have Welsh.

I hope that with those explanations the order will commend itself to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

To move that the draft order laid before the House on 22 June be approved. 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 ewDebSeptember.

Motion agreed.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 2 and 9, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9C in lieu.

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

My Lords, during the passage of this legislation it has been evident that the Government have been prepared to consider and, indeed, to support amendments which improve the provisions of the Bill. This Bill has been refined and improved by the scrutiny to which it has been subjected both in this House and in the other place. Most notably in this House, we worked with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the amendment in his name, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the distinguished former Speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Martin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to bring forward a new version of Clause 2. We also implemented the recommendation made by your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, we have also consistently opposed amendments which would undermine what we believe to be the fundamental purpose of the Bill.

The Bill has now been scrutinised at length and there remains one outstanding issue to resolve: whether there should be a sunset provision. This House has now twice inserted a sunset provision, while each time the other House has voted to remove it. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, seeks to revitalise the amendments to achieve that, reintroduce them to the Bill and impose them on the other place for a third time. The Government agree with those in the other place who oppose the sunset clause—indeed, it has been described as a sunset and sunrise clause—and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I briefly repeat our objections.

The purpose of the Bill is to remove the Prime Minister’s power to ask for a general election at a time that is most politically advantageous for his or her party. As has been expressed in our debates, a number of your Lordships believe that the Bill is simply a “fix” for this coalition, but I assure the House that that is not the case. The Government believe that there should be fixed terms and that it should be for the House of Commons to decide on the timing of an early general election and not a Prime Minister. I also remind your Lordships that the 2010 manifestos of both my party and the Labour Party included a pledge to establish fixed-term Parliaments.

In his speech when visiting the Scottish Parliament in May last year, less than 72 hours after taking office, the Prime Minister made clear how significant a transfer of power this is, remarking that he was the,

“first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right unilaterally to ask the Queen for a dissolution of Parliament. This is a huge change in our system, it is a big giving up of power … I have made that change. It’s a big change and a good change”.

I know that a number of noble Lords agree with that assessment. Indeed, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, remarked that this Bill is something of a collector’s item as it is an example of the Government surrendering a significant power to Parliament. My noble friend Lady Stowell also remarked that the Bill will ensure that the Government and the Opposition must face the electorate on a set date whatever way the opinion polls are pointing. In other words, the Bill creates a level playing field and will ensure that the electorate are not left waiting in limbo for a Prime Minister to decide when to call an election.

If this House were to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I believe that it would be reintroducing exactly the kind of politicking that the Bill seeks to end. If each new Parliament had to resolve whether or not to serve for a fixed term—I understand that under the terms of the amendment it would be able to decide that at any time during the lifetime of a Parliament—that decision would inevitably be subject to political intrigue and made in a partisan way.

Should a future Parliament wish to move away from fixed terms, it would be free to do so by either amending or repealing the legislation—the way in which most Acts of Parliament are treated if a Government wish to overturn them. Such a constitutional change is no small matter but one that should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, as this Bill has been. By contrast, the sunset amendments would switch fixed terms on and off like a light switch. Parliament would default to non-fixed terms if a simple resolution failed to be tabled or if the two Houses could not agree on the matter. In our view, it is clearly not appropriate for constitutional legislation to be applied or disapplied simply as a result of passing or failing to pass, or indeed failing to table, a resolution.

I know that the members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee had misgivings about the Bill. However, in their recent report, The Process of Constitutional Change, they emphasised the need for proper scrutiny of constitutional reforms. One of their conclusions stated:

“We stress the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of all bills, but we do not recommend that any new parliamentary procedures such as super-majorities should apply to significant constitutional bills”.

This legislation has been subject to considerable scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. I rather suspect that if the Government had introduced in the original Bill the kind of provision that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, seeks to insert, the Procedure Committee might have given it pretty short shrift.

I do not believe that these sunset amendments would stand up to the scrutiny that one would expect if Parliament were to make an important constitutional change. They would take us into uncharted constitutional waters. They assume that it would be possible for the Prime Minister to regain the option of asking the monarch to dissolve Parliament. However, by failing to provide for the prerogative power to dissolve to be reinstated, we could be left in a position where neither the rules in the Bill nor the previous prerogative powers had effect. Indeed, it is not immediately clear whether it is possible for a prerogative power to be reinstated. Normally, once statute has “occupied the field” of the prerogative, the prerogative lapses and it is a long-standing judicial principle that new prerogatives cannot be created.

I know that many of your Lordships who supported the sunset amendments have genuine concerns about the Bill and about the concept of fixed-term Parliaments. I respect the views that have been expressed with great passion in a number of our debates. I accept that moving to a fixed-term Parliament is a significant change. Although I believe that this is a change for the better, as it transfers power from the Executive to Parliament, I acknowledge that it is a significant reform and that such reforms can often cause angst.

That is why the Government have brought forward an amendment in lieu of the amendments to sunset the Bill. It provides that the Prime Minister must make arrangements to set up a committee to review the operation of the legislation in 2020. Those arrangements would require the committee to consider the operation of the Act and, if appropriate, to make recommendations for its repeal or amendment. This would introduce a statutory requirement for post-legislative scrutiny, ensuring that the reservations that noble Lords have expressed could be considered again once we had real experience of the effects of the Bill. That is why we propose conducting the review in 2020, when we can ensure that the committee’s scrutiny is informed by the experience of one Parliament whose length is fixed from beginning to end.

A majority of the members of the committee would be Members of the other place, reflecting both the primacy of the other place and the fact that they would have contested elections whose timing was determined by the Bill. Nevertheless, the amendment still leaves open the possibility of Members of your Lordships’ House sitting on the committee. I believe that this will ensure that the committee’s deliberations benefit from the wealth of experience and expertise on constitutional issues that resides in this Chamber.

The amendment gives categorical reassurance that the legislation will be subjected to full post-legislative scrutiny. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a much better solution than the sunset and sunrise provisions, which would lead to a great deal of uncertainty with voters not knowing the length of the Parliament they were electing, which could leave the statute book in some form of disarray.

I close by reflecting briefly on the role of this Chamber, and in doing so I can do no better than to quote the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. During our debate in June on the proposed reforms to your Lordships’ House the noble Lord said:

“The House of Lords can and does suggest revisions of draft legislation, but it cannot in the end enforce those revisions against the will of the House of Commons. We are a revising Chamber and a debating Chamber, and valuable in both functions, but we cannot prevail against the House of Commons if it wishes to insist. The House of Commons is sovereign in the matter of law-making”.—[Official Report, 22/6/11; col. 1257.]

Noble Lords have raised with the other place the matter of a sunset provision on two occasions. The other place has now twice sent us a clear message that it does not wish for a sunset provision, both times by a substantial majority. If your Lordships again insist on including sunset clauses, we would again be challenging the clearly expressed will of the elected Chamber. We believe that it would be wrong to ask the elected House to reconsider this measure for a third time, yet in this amendment in lieu the other place is providing a compromise that will ensure that the Bill is subject to post-legislative scrutiny, but without the undesirable consequences and uncertainty that come with sunset amendments.

I therefore urge noble Lords to accept the compromise put forward by the other place in this amendment and not to insist on the sunset amendments. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

I disagree entirely with the noble Lord’s point. But I will ask why in that case he thinks that the Government that he supports did not support the suggestion that the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Pannick, made to the Government during the Recess. What was wrong with it, as far as the Government were concerned?

To sum up, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this proposal. Frankly, there was much more unconstitutionality in the way this Bill was dreamed up by the two parties in the coalition as a way of protecting their own party interests—and if one wants proof of that, one only has to look at page 98 of the right honourable David Laws’ book 22 Days in May. For all these reasons, the House should not take any lessons from this Government on constitutional propriety. We will be supporting the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, anyone who had never known any of the history of this, listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, would probably be astounded to learn that the Labour Party supported the idea of fixed-term Parliaments in its manifesto, as far back as 1992—

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

We lost!

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The argument that, because Labour lost, that devalues the principle is not one I have fully understood. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that the Prime Minister had completely set his face against fixed-term Parliaments. In a speech entitled “Fixing Broken Politics” which my right honourable friend the then Leader of the Opposition made on Tuesday 26 May 2009, he said:

“But I believe the arguments for fixed-term Parliaments are strengthening too. Because if we want Parliament to be a real engine of accountability, we need to show that it is not just the creature of the executive. That's why a Conservative Government will seriously consider the option of fixed-term Parliaments when there is a majority government”.

So I think it is wrong to say that this is something that the Prime Minister had totally set his face against in opposition. There was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto to look at areas of the exercise of the royal prerogative.

Can I start by picking up the points which my noble friend Lord Alderdice made? I think he put his finger on it when he said that this is not disrespect but disagreement. It is a genuine disagreement, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would agree that when Mr Mark Harper and I met him it was quite clear that there was a gulf between us. Two propositions were put to us, which would have addressed what we had identified as some of the technical—indeed, more than technical—problems of the amendment, but did not actually address what we believed to be a fundamental problem with the amendment, which is that it undermines the actual core purpose of the Bill. This Bill is the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, in the plural. It is not a Bill to have a fixed-term Parliament for this Parliament, the one elected in May 2010, but rather one to have fixed-term Parliaments into the future, all this of course being subject to the right of any Parliament to repeal the legislation of a predecessor Parliament. That is why there is a fundamental difference.

Therefore it is not disrespect, and I can assure your Lordships that I would not wish to be disrespectful to genuinely held views. I think some people do not believe that having a fixed-term Parliament is right, but they will allow us to make some fix for this Parliament. In fact I think that what happens with the amendment is that it leaves us in the position of having the potential of a fix for every future Parliament. It is not putting this on a permanent basis; it is an amendment which could allow the powers to lapse, and then be revived again in a subsequent Parliament after 2020, or whenever—if the powers had lapsed, it might not necessarily last the full five years. The incoming Parliament following that election could revive the powers, or again, after a subsequent election, it could let them lapse. We do not believe that that is a particularly good way of legislating with regard to the constitution. It is literally switching the light on and switching the light off again.

That is why—if I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—I have a concern about the nature of the royal prerogative. The existence of the royal prerogative would then appear to be dependent upon the resolutions of each House not being carried. It does not seem very desirable that the prerogative may sometimes not exist, and then sometimes be revived. That may not be the drafter’s intention, but it is not clear what he has achieved in the drafting. In particular, the presumption of Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 is that where an enactment of temporary duration—which the provisions abrogating the dissolution of prerogative appear to be—expires, it does not ordinarily revive anything not in force at the time of the expiry. I think there is a genuine concern there. In matters so important as the royal prerogative, the idea that it can be revived, then allowed to lapse and then revived again is not particularly satisfactory.

I shall now pick up the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about the Parliament Act. It is something we have always acknowledged and recognised. The reason why the Parliament Acts would not apply in this case is nothing to do with the concept of fixed-term Parliaments. As he rightly pointed out, it is a provision in the Bill: in response to this House we deleted the part that would allow the election to be brought forward by two months, but there was still a provision there to extend it by two months. That takes it over the five years—the arguments for that were debated well at the time—as happened also in 2001 with the outbreak of foot and mouth. It is also important to point out that your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee actually said that it thought it was a proper power, but recommended that we should have a Written Statement from the Prime Minister as to why the power was being exercised—a recommendation which we accepted. I do not think that is an issue about which there is any real dispute. It goes to the heart of whether or not we should have fixed-term Parliaments.

That takes me to the core issue; and, I say again, we are not being disrespectful. When one is proposing a review that will not take place until 2020, it is very easy to talk about long grass, time capsules or scrawny babies. However, it would be even more disrespectful—frankly ludicrous—to ask a committee to examine a fixed-term Parliament when there had not been one. I take the strictures and advice that I got from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who said he was glad that I had not advanced the argument about the planning of government business. However, until this legislation is passed, this is not a fixed-term Parliament. Therefore, it is not reasonable to suggest that the example of this Parliament could ever be described as a proper, normal fixed-term Parliament. Many of us have advanced arguments during the debates as to why we think there ought to be a fixed-term Parliament; and, indeed, why they ought to be five years rather than four—an issue which no doubt a post-legislative review could finalise. We will only know whether the case for the beneficial effects has been made out when we have actually had the experience of one fixed-term Parliament elected as a fixed-term Parliament and seeing through its term; or, for that matter, had an early election because of some event that has triggered the mechanism in Clause 2.

I do not consider that an insult. If you are going to do proper pre-legislative scrutiny, make sure that you are scrutinising something that has actually happened—that you have actually got a piece of material, or evidence, on which you can actually base informed scrutiny.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

Is the Minister telling us that we do not scrutinise Bills before they come into operation? Is he suggesting that we have no pre-scrutiny now?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I look upon it as post-legislative scrutiny. You cannot scrutinise what you have legislated for until it has happened. We will not have had a fixed-term Parliament that has run its full course until 2020. It is as simple as that.

[Lord Bach]

Once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will be a fixed-term Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

I ask the noble Lord, through the Minister, whether it is therefore the Government’s position that all the arguments and discussions we had about no-confidence Motions—as they related historically and as they will, presumably, be affected under the fixed-term Parliament legislation—will not apply to this Parliament before 2015.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is not the case, as we know. I was making the point that this Parliament was not elected as a fixed-term Parliament. I am sure if the noble Baroness thinks about it, she will appreciate this. The arguments, I recall, when we debated the benefits of four or five years and whether it would affect the legislative plan of Governments coming into office, were that this would not happen with this Parliament, as that was not the basis on which it was elected. I am saying that you really need the experience of a full fixed-term Parliament to see whether the claims that have been made for it have been borne out. Therefore there is no way that is disrespectful—it is the only time you can have a meaningful post-legislative review, unless you are simply going to have an academic one rather than one based properly on experience.

I say again that I believe that this House has made an important contribution to this Bill and that its shape—in particular the trigger mechanisms for an early election—is vastly better because of the debates that we had. This Government are prepared to listen and have shown their willingness to do so. However, we cannot agree to something that we believe actually goes to the heart of the Bill and undermines one of its central purposes. For that reason, we cannot agree with the Motion as proposed, but we believe that it is proper and right to have a proper post-legislative review; one which, if the fixed-term Parliaments take their normal course, would have to be started within just over one month after the election or no later than six months after that. There is a set time limit under which the Prime Minister would have to make the necessary arrangements. On that basis, I commend that amendment in lieu to the House.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I thank those who have taken part in this debate. I particularly say to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that of course I accept that this is a disagreement—a disagreement on a very important constitutional matter, on which, I think, everybody agrees there has not been the normal preparation for a major change on a constitutional matter. That is the argument for allowing a sunrise clause, which will allow the next Parliament to take a view, in the light of further deliberation, consideration and consultation, and, indeed, of experience. Those who read the debate in the House of Commons last week will know that there are views on both sides of that House on this matter. As has been said, both on the government and the opposition side, there is concern about, and opposition to, the Bill as it stands.

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, in his very eloquent way, that the House of Lords never has to give way to this Bill, strictly speaking, because it is not covered by the Parliament Act. I sincerely hope that it does not come to that but, in the House of Commons debate last week, it was a Conservative Member who—making the point that the Bill is not covered by the Parliament Act—said that the House of Lords can hold out indefinitely if necessary. I am not arguing for that at all but would like to have the sort of serious discussions with the Government on a serious constitutional matter that so far—I am sorry to say—the Government have not been prepared to have. In the House of Commons last week, the Labour spokesman said of the Member who pointed to the effect of the Parliament Act:

“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: your lordships, stand firm”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/11; col. 592.]

I very much hope that the House of Lords tonight will stand firm, with a view to enabling meaningful discussions with the Government on this important constitutional matter. I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 22 June 2011 be considered. Perhaps I may provide the Committee with a brief explanation of what the order is intended to achieve. It 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.

In this case, the order is laid in consequence of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which I shall refer to as the 2010 Act. The Merits Committee of your Lordships' House has reviewed the order and has not noted it as of special interest. The 2010 Act makes a number of changes to the law, and the order relates to some of the changes made to sentencing, criminal procedure, criminal law and criminal justice. The 2010 Act introduced a new community sentence in Scotland, known as the community payback order. This order will enable the transfer of community payback orders imposed by a court in Scotland to England and Wales or Northern Ireland where an offender resides or intends to reside there. For an offender who subsequently proposes to move or has moved to England and Wales where an order is already in place, this order provides for the transfer of community payback orders and allows the court to impose a community payback order on an offender who resides or will reside in England and Wales. In both scenarios, the court must not impose the order unless the offender is aged 16 or older. In addition, the court must be satisfied that arrangements had been made or can be made for the offender to comply with the requirements imposed by the order in accordance with arrangements that exist in the relevant area for offenders. The court must also be satisfied that either a responsible officer will be appointed or that the offender will be supervised by a relevant probation service.

The analogous order to a Scottish community payback order in England and Wales is a community order—or, for offenders aged between 16 and 18, the youth rehabilitation order. When transferred, the community payback order has effect in England and Wales as if it were a community order made by a court there.

The order we are considering today contains almost identical provision for cross-border transfer of the community payback order in relation to offenders who reside or will reside in Northern Ireland, with a number of necessary modifications. In Northern Ireland, the corresponding order to the Scottish community payback order will be a probation or community service order under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

The 2010 Act also sets out what use can be made of various sources of forensic data about individuals who are arrested or detained under suspicion of having committed an offence. The order will allow forensic data, as well as data taken from terrorist suspects, to be used for the reserved purpose of national security and for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. The provisions clarify that forensic data taken for reserved purposes can also be used for specific devolved purposes. The provisions are a valuable tool for the prevention and detection of crime in Scotland.

The 2010 Act also ensures that a person will be made subject to the sex offender notification requirements when they are convicted of the offence of possession of extreme pornography. The order extends that as a matter of law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. That ensures that a person made subject to the notification requirements as a result of a conviction for possession of extreme pornography in Scotland cannot evade the requirement to register by moving elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Finally, the 2010 Act makes a number of improvements to the operation of the foreign travel orders. The order extends the Scottish offence of breaching the requirement to surrender passports under the foreign travel order to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. We believe that it is a sensible measure given the increased mobility of offenders, who try to avoid their obligations by leaving one jurisdiction for another, and it also addresses a growing international concern about sex tourism.

The order demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that the Committee will agree that the order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical results are to be welcomed. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, this is the second time that I have responded to a statutory instrument on behalf of the Opposition. For the second time, I place on record my appreciation for the co-operation and understanding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in offering me assistance in dealing with this. The behaviour of the noble and learned Lord is always an example to me of how I should aspire to be in this House, but that may take some time.

I place on record my appreciation for the contact from the Minister's office offering that help. I can assure the young lady who contacted me that although I may not have needed assistance this time, I am sure that at some point I shall be knocking on her door instead of her coming to me first.

The order is sensible. Following last night’s deliberation on the Scotland Bill, it shows the sensible co-operation that can and does take place since devolution has been brought to Scotland. I am quite impressed by how the two systems can work together to ensure that there is no avoidance of the community payback scheme. That is first class.

The Minister has explained the order well. However, in the other place, the honourable Member who has the honour to represent the Royal Borough of Rutherglen, Mr Tom Greatrex, asked some questions for clarification about the guidance, the collection and use of the forensic data that will be transferred between the north and the south and how the arrangements would work. The Minister undertook to write to the Members of that Committee. Can we have an update on that? Can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, clarify that for the Committee?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his generous remarks. Indeed, it helps the Committee’s consideration of these orders to work if there is an exchange of information.

The noble Lord asked about guidance, picking up the points made by his illustrious successor representing the Royal Borough of Rutherglen, Mr Greatrex. The position is that the Scottish Government have published guidance on all the forensic data provisions of the 2010 Act, including Section 82, which is the section that gives rise to this part of the order.

The Home Office and the Government are in the early stages of working with the relevant law enforcement authorities to develop specific guidance in the forensic data matters arising from the Protection of Freedoms Bill and indeed the wider use of forensic data. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Scotland Office, Mr Mundell, has written to Mr Greatrex confirming that,

“the Home Office and the Scottish Government are working with the relevant law enforcement authorities (including the Serious Organised Crime Agency and HM Revenue and Customs) with the intention of developing specific guidance on forensic data matters arising from both the Protection of Freedoms Bill”—

which is currently before the other place—

“and the wider use of forensic data. Part 1 of the Schedule to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Section 104 Order amends the”,

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in Scotland,

“to avoid operational confusion and ensure that there is a clear legal basis for the retention and use of forensic data in Scotland for both reserved and devolved purposes”.

The Protection of Freedoms Bill will also impact on this area because of the,

“provisions in Scotland under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995”,

as amended by the Act that triggers this order.

The other point that Mr Greatrex raised related to the foreign travel orders. My right honourable friend’s letter says:

“the latest version of guidance produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland … relative to the management of registered sex offenders is subject to continual monitoring and review in light of developments in the law and in policy and practice”.

My right honourable friend is advised that,

“This guidance is currently being amended to take account of the amendments made to the … regime”,

as a result of the primary legislation this order. I understand that the guidance will be made available to the police in good time. I hope that that gives an explanation to the points raised by the noble Lord, and I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

My Lords, as your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee said,

“The Scotland Bill is a measure of clear constitutional significance”.

Indeed, this Bill will strengthen Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom by further empowering the Scottish Parliament and making it more accountable to the Scottish people. I do not think that I have said anything controversial.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister had said something very important: this Bill is a matter of clear constitutional significance, not just to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom. Does he not think that it is a disgrace that we are starting to discuss the Bill at 5.35 pm, and that we are only going to have half a day for the Bill, when in 1998 the Scotland Bill had two days at Second Reading? Is that not outrageous, and are the Government Whips not culpable in relation to that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I only venture into this to say that I think that the Government are wise at all times to be flexible in their approach. Although I am part of the usual channels, I must say I did predict at the time that this would not be an easy passage for the Bill. I go no further than that, because I do not want to undermine the effectiveness of the workings of the usual channels. However, I think that noble Lords agree that these are points that are very well made to the House, and they have validity.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, both sides of the usual channels have no doubt heard the points that have been made. I reiterate the point that this is a Bill of constitutional importance, and I think that it is important that we now make progress to debate it. Given the quality of the speakers—as is the case in of all your Lordships’ House’s debates—I think that, looking down the list of former Secretaries of State, former law officers, former Members of the Scottish Parliament, former junior Ministers in the Scottish and Scotland Offices, we are clearly going to have a well-informed debate, and one that is worthy of the importance of this Bill. I believe that the Bill will strengthen Scotland’s position in the United Kingdom, it will empower the Scottish Parliament, and it will make that Parliament more accountable to the Scottish people. It delivers on our coalition agreement to implement the recommendations of the Calman commission. It is in fact the biggest transfer of fiscal responsibility within the United Kingdom since the Act of Union in 1707, and delivers the first major change to the workings of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers since that Parliament was established in 1999.

For its first decade and more, the Scottish Parliament has been accountable to the Scottish people for the money it spends. We believe the time is now right to make it accountable for the money it raises—one of the fundamental changes that this Bill will bring about. Many noble Lords present will remember, and indeed took part in, the debates on the Scotland Bill in 1998 in one House or the other. They will recall, however, as any look at the record shows, the significant scrutiny that this House afforded to the Scotland Bill at that time. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, allowing himself a small chuckle. With all due respect to all the others who took part, he did much of the heavy lifting on that Bill and deserves credit for that. I have no doubt that those who served in scrutinising the 1998 Bill, and indeed many other noble Lords, will afford the current Bill the same level of examination to ensure that it too delivers the new powers that will benefit Scotland.

I believe that the Scottish Parliament has been a success and is here to stay. Indeed, that was the first conclusion of the Calman commission. The Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which I and other noble Lords were members, built up the case for the 1998 Act and set the country on the path towards creating a Scottish Parliament, which is now an important part of Scottish life. Decisions are now taken closer to the people they affect. Decisions on housing, education and hospitals are made in Scotland, for the good of the Scottish people by a Parliament that they have elected to serve them. Devolution in Scotland has delivered notable policy initiatives: free personal care; a Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency; long-overdue land reform; proportional representation for local government elections; a smoking ban in public places, which paved the way for a similar measure in other parts of the United Kingdom. In what seems a relatively short period, devolution has become central to the way in which we work. Many of us in this Chamber have worked either for or with devolution and the Parliament in Scotland.

The Calman commission was established to review the settlement in light of experience and to recommend changes to enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better. Improving the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament was an important part of the commission’s remit, which was agreed by the Scottish Parliament and endorsed by the then United Kingdom Government. Membership of the commission included representatives from the three main United Kingdom political parties and from local government, experts in Scots law, business, education, community organisations and the trade unions. I must tell noble Lords that when, in 2008, I agreed to sit on the commission for the Liberal Democrats I was not anticipating that, three years later, I would be the Minister charged with taking the recommendations through the House—not that it would have had any influence on recommendations that I agreed to.

We wish to thank the chair of the commission, Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, the other commissioners and Professor Anton Muscatelli and the independent expert group on finance, which supported the commission in the work that it did. It was work invaluable to the future of devolution and I particularly look forward to the contributions of my fellow commissioners today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, the noble Lords, Lord Elder and Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who brought their wealth of experience and understanding to the commission. The Scotland Bill has enjoyed widespread support across the political spectrum. Consensus on its purpose and direction has been the order of the day. This Government are delivering the next chapter in Scottish devolution and remain committed to doing so, with the support of the three main United Kingdom-wide parties. It is on the basis of cross-party consensus that the Bill has been taken forward, alongside a commitment to consider suggestions from others, including the Scottish Government, as we proceed.

Those of us who campaigned for devolution wanted more decisions taken in Scotland by a Scottish Parliament but we also wanted to retain many of the benefits, to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, which come from remaining part of our United Kingdom. The devolution settlement was about getting that balance right. Of course, there will always be those who think that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for everything and there are those who think that devolution has already gone too far. However, by and large, we have managed to maintain consensus while bringing forward a strong set of improvements to the original settlement. The fact that the Calman commission was not inundated with representations to make fundamental changes to the division between devolved and reserved matters is, I believe, testimony to the judgment of the architects of the 1998 Act.

We will strengthen devolution by providing new powers to the Holyrood Parliament. In 1997, the Scottish public voted for a Parliament that could change the rate of tax within a limited margin. That power has never been used. In fact, the current Scottish Government who, as we know, are forever calling for new powers actually allowed this tax power to lapse last year. The United Kingdom Government do not want to see Holyrood lose its fiscal powers, rather the opposite. The financial powers contained in the Bill are, as I have indicated, the largest transfer of financial powers out of London since the United Kingdom was created. The Parliament will become accountable for raising more than a third of the money it spends.

The Bill will create a Scottish rate of income tax by cutting 10p from every income tax rate, reducing the Scottish block grant in proportion and obliging the Scottish Parliament to set a new rate to meet its spending plans. It will allow Scottish Ministers to borrow up to £500 million for current spending and up to £2.2 billion in capital spending. In the light of a request from the Scottish Parliament, we will make part of that capital investment available in pre-payments for approved projects by 2012.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The Bill abolishes the variable rate of income tax—the 3p rate, which was approved by a referendum of the Scottish people—so it is taking away a specific power approved by referendum. Why do the Government not think it necessary to have a referendum, given that they are going to introduce a further power that goes beyond the 3p they are abolishing and which was approved by the people in a referendum?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The answer to that is that we have absolutely moved forward; the Scottish Parliament has been established and it is very clear that what we are proposing has commanded widespread consensus within Scotland. It was not only the product of a commission that took extensive evidence. It has been supported by the three UK-wide political parties and by the representatives of the Scottish people in the Scottish Parliament, as I will indicate later, by 121 votes to three. There is a broad consensus for that in Scotland and, with the honourable exception of my noble friend, I have not really heard any clamour for a referendum on the specific tax powers involved in this Bill.

As I indicated, it will also devolve landfill tax, stamp duty and the power to create new taxes. The Bill will phase in these powers up to 2016. It will provide a whole new set of policy levers that will be at the disposal of the Scottish Government elected in that year. In his David Hume Institute address last week, my colleague the Secretary of State set out some possibilities that would be open to future Scottish Ministers. With their new tax powers, the Scottish Government could stimulate the construction sector and boost the housing market by cutting stamp duty by, for example, 5 per cent at a cost of £25 million to the Scottish budget, or ensure that Scotland competes to be the greenest country in Europe by proposing innovative new green taxes, offset by other tax cuts, to ensure that Scotland moves the tax burden from people to pollution. They could use the new Scottish income tax to raise investment in public services higher than is the case in other parts of the United Kingdom, or do just the opposite—cutting the rate to attract bright and ambitious people to Scotland and reduce the brain drain from within.

Those are all options. We are providing the power; it will be up to the Scottish Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland, as to how those options are exercised. However, the Command Paper published in November alongside the Bill stated that for every penny by which one increases income tax, the yield will be around £450 million—or 1.7 per cent of the present Scottish budget. That gives a flavour of the considerable powers that this Bill provides to Scottish Ministers. This is a big shift to the financing of public services in Scotland. It will deliver real financial accountability, as more than a third of current spending will be funded by taxes determined and raised in Scotland. It will give the Scottish Parliament a real stake in Scottish economic performance, as a significant proportion of the budget for public services in Scotland will come directly from taxes set and raised in Scotland. Stability to the Scottish budget will continue to be provided by continuing block grant from the United Kingdom Government.

Delivering the Donald Dewar lecture in 2003, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said:

“No self respecting Parliament should expect to exist permanently on 100% handouts determined by another Parliament, nor should it be responsible for massive public expenditure without any responsibility for raising revenue in a manner accountable to the electorate”.

I believe that this Bill addresses that critique. The Calman commission also concluded that the original divide, as I have indicated, between devolved and reserved policy powers was broadly right. The Bill therefore does not seek radically to alter the boundary but instead updates the balance between reserved and devolved powers in specific areas, as recommended by the commission. We are devolving the power to set the national speed limit and the drink drive limit, to regulate air weapons. Recognising that this is a two-way street, where a consistent approach across the United Kingdom is required, we will legislate at a United Kingdom level, specifically over the winding up of companies and the regulation of healthcare professionals, as provided for by the Bill.

The functioning of the Scottish Parliament itself will be improved by measures in this Bill. The Parliament will be able to elect additional deputy presiding officers, it will have greater discretion to set its own Members’ interests regime, and there will be greater flexibility about the makeup of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Closer working relationships between UK and Scottish Ministers will be required. Scottish Ministers have a role in the appointment of a Scottish member of the BBC Trust, and a Scottish Crown Estate commissioner.

The Bill also provides for some largely technical and relatively uncontroversial updates to improve the Scotland Act and help devolution to operate more effectively. Improving devolution for Scotland is an ongoing process, and while constitutional legislation is rare, the Scotland Bill provides an opportunity to make some amendments. In my role as Advocate-General, I am responsible for providing advice on Scots legal issues to the United Kingdom Government, and I therefore thought it right to take the opportunity to review the existing Scotland Act. There are a number of technical measures in the Bill.

I also took the opportunity to revisit an area of the Scotland Act which was raised with the Calman commission by the judiciary, but on which the commission made no recommendation. I established an expert group under Sir David Edward to consider the way in which acts or failures to act of the Lord Advocate that are incompatible with Community law and convention rights are dealt with. Clause 17 of the Bill implements the findings of that expert group and simplifies process, with human rights and European Union law issues being referred to the Supreme Court.

The Bill represents a large and historic change for Scotland, and therefore deserves proper scrutiny, which I am sure this House will give it. Alongside the scrutiny it received in the other place, the Scottish Parliament has examined and debated the Bill, and the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster provided a rigorous analysis of the Bill’s provisions.

Your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee has noted that the Bill is of clear constitutional significance, but also said that there were no issues of constitutional concern in the Bill. I noted that the Committee welcomed the extensive deliberation which preceded introduction of the Bill. Those of us who are veterans of the PVSC Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will be very pleased with that particular commendation from the Constitution Committee. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also noted no issues in the Bill.

The Government welcome all these reports, and thank those who have worked to consider this Bill. While the Calman commission’s balance and evidence process is the basis for the Bill, the Government have made it clear that we have never ruled out sensible and similarly evidenced suggestions for change. We have listened to recommendations made by the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, and to advice from other stakeholders, and while we believe that the Scotland Bill package provides the right balance of powers for tomorrow’s Scottish Parliament, we nevertheless have made some amendments to the Bill, and the supporting non-legislative package.

These will give Scottish Ministers greater flexibility to exercise their new powers effectively; for example, by bringing forward to 2011 pre-payments—a form of cash advance to allow work on the Forth replacement crossing to begin. The Government have listened to other recommendations and tweaked the finance and non-finance aspects of the Bill and its accompanying package.

We continue to believe that the package set out in this Bill and the associated Command Paper will strengthen Scottish Devolution and Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. It provides strong financial accountability to the Scottish Parliament, and the right balance of additional powers. It provides the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament with new tools to deliver policies in Scotland to respond to new challenges.

The other place debated the Bill over three days in Committee on the Floor of the House. Committee days in this House subject to the Motion later, will take place as a Committee of the Whole House. It is right that legislation of such constitutional significance gains the level of scrutiny it deserves, and that no one is excluded from the process. The whole essence of the Bill has been about inclusion. All parties were invited to be involved in the Calman process, just as they were in the Constitutional Convention. Those parties and those people who accepted the offer have therefore had the biggest hand in shaping these, and therefore the future of devolution.

There is, of course, a relationship with another place, a place much affected by the provisions of this Bill, and that is the Scottish Parliament. As I have indicated, the previous Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly approved the Bill, with 121 MSPs voting for the legislative consent measure in support, three voting against, and one abstaining. The three main UK-wide parties, together with the party which currently forms the Scottish Government, voted in support of the Bill. I think we can say that the Scottish Parliament believes in the Scotland Bill.

A new Parliament with a new focus was elected on 5 May, and as we are all well aware, it represented a landmark change in Scottish politics. This new Scottish Parliament will consider the Bill again, and we will consider sensible recommendations for the Bill made in time for this House’s final amending stage. We will get the chance to consider any recommendations which come from the Scottish Parliament, and the Government will continue to work with the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee, which is considering amendments to the Bill. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will give evidence to the Committee on Thursday of this week.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is with us today, has given his name to a convention that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters on Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. This convention has been developed and embodies the respect that this Parliament has for the Scottish Parliament. In keeping with the spirit of the convention, the Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Parliament Committee reviewing the Bill, and we will look to maintain the support of the Scottish Parliament for the Bill.

As is well known, the Scottish Government have expressed their desire to see additions made. We will look at these further proposals and set them against three tests: that the Scottish Government provides detailed proposals to strengthen the Bill; that the proposals maintain the cross-party consensus that has been worked up and developed; and that any such proposals are beneficial to Scotland, without being prejudicial to the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole. I will of course keep the House appropriately informed of any developments in discussions with the Scottish Government, which will operate under a banner of mutual respect.

I have no doubt that in the course of the next few hours, many noble Lords will wish to debate not only the detailed provisions of the Bill, but also wider constitutional issues of importance to which this Bill is related. Of course, as I have indicated, the political landscape has changed since the Bill was introduced into the other place. Most obviously, the Scottish Government have claimed their election success as a mandate for a referendum on independence.

The Scottish Government have still got a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their main objective of separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. They do not want to provide any detail on how or when they will conduct a referendum. Nor do they want to explain in any greater detail, to date, what they mean by independence. The people of Scotland deserve to be told, and we will keep pressure on them to provide the facts to the people of Scotland. The Government, along with other noble Lords, believe that Scotland’s future is a future within the United Kingdom.

The Scotland Bill is a vehicle for upgrading Scotland’s devolution settlement. It is a Bill founded on evidence. It is a Bill with a clear purpose and clear principles: to strengthen devolution within the United Kingdom and to make the Scottish Parliament financially accountable. It fixes some things that have not quite worked; it makes the Parliament and the Government of Scotland more responsible for money they raise; and it allows the Scottish Parliament itself to run more effectively. Crucially, it will leave the Scottish Parliament with more powers than it had before; mature powers for a maturing Parliament.

The package strengthens the United Kingdom, by providing a settlement with financial responsibility, but it maintains the key elements of risk and benefit sharing that help the United Kingdom as a whole to perform effectively on the world stage and deliver fairly for all people. Stronger devolution which works for Scotland works for the United Kingdom, and I believe strengthens the United Kingdom for years to come. I commend this Bill to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I very much agree with what he said about the intemperate nature of the attacks that were made on the judges by the First Minister of Scotland. All I can say is that when I was Secretary of State, I made the odd intemperate attack—on the noble and learned Lord, actually—but had I done what the First Minister did, I am sure I would have been sacked the next day. I hope that lessons have been learnt from that.

I hope I shall not damage the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, by saying that his speech was absolutely excellent and that I agreed with many of his points. I shall come to that. However, because of the ridiculous position in which we find ourselves, I shall concentrate, for reasons of time, on Part 3 of the Bill, which is concerned with taxation. My noble and learned friend has said that this will bring accountability to the Scottish Parliament.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, is not here. I have great affection for the debates that we had about devolution. I was opposed to it; he was in favour. He told me that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. I have to say that the Bill looks curiously out of time. The world has moved on. We all know what the genesis of the Calman commission was. Wendy Alexander quite sensibly suggested that we should cut the Gordian knot and have a referendum on independence once and for all—that we should take the nationalists at their word. Unfortunately, she was not supported by the Prime Minister, so the three unionist parties got together and set up Calman in the hope that it would halt the nationalist bandwagon. That has not quite worked out. We now have a nationalist Administration without, it seems, any check or balance on it. The architecture of the electoral system under the Scotland Act, which was to prevent any party gaining dominance, has failed. We now have a nationalist Administration determined to use all the resources of the Scottish Office to break up the United Kingdom and pretending that it is in favour of an immediate referendum.

When my noble and learned friend says that the income tax powers will bring accountability, I very much doubt it. I give noble Lords a tale of woe as an example: the poll tax. We introduced the poll tax; it did not work out terribly well for us. The argument was that it would bring accountability to local government. The problem was that the proportion of the revenue that was raised, as with the rating system, was small. Therefore, to get a relatively small increase in resources there had to be a huge increase in the level of poll tax. That was the fundamental flaw. The idea of accountability is the same as the case that the Minister makes for income tax. I noticed that in his speech he said that a penny on income tax would raise £450 million.

Let us be clear about this: we are not talking here about the 3p variable rate on the basic rate of income tax. The Bill abolishes that, even though it was agreed by the Scottish people in a referendum, as I indicated earlier. We are talking about introducing, for the first time, a Scottish income tax that will apply at the basic, intermediate and top levels. The Minister said that £450 million was 1.7 per cent of the Scottish Budget. On my calculations, if we take £450 million as the product of that, a 5p increase in the Scottish income tax rate would give you an 8.5 per cent increase in the Budget, so to get 8.5 per cent more money you would have to increase the basic rate of income tax by a quarter.

The stoppages in most people’s pay packets would go up by a quarter in order to increase the Budget by less than 10 per cent. That is disastrous in an environment that has changed, where there is a huge deficit and where the Scottish Parliament was given a year off by the Chancellor and it did not make the necessary deficit reductions. To bring this measure in now seems extraordinary because the income tax proposals suffer from the same gearing problems that applied to the poll tax, the rating system and now to the council tax.

Here, the Government and those who support these proposals have a problem. On the council tax, I think our policy is to freeze it. On the one hand we argue that the Scottish Parliament must have the right to put up taxes in order to have accountability, but in local government this does not apply. We have a new policy that where the council tax is to be increased by more than the rate of inflation, there has to be a referendum of the local people to approve it. I ask my noble and learned friend why that does not apply to the local income tax. Why is there not going to be a referendum first of all on the principle of having this? My noble and learned friend says that there is a consensus in Scotland and that everyone agrees with this. I wager that if you stop three people in the streets of Edinburgh and tell them that a Bill is going through Parliament that could put their income tax up by a quarter in order to increase expenditure by less than 10 per cent—or, in this case, maintain expenditure—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

First, I point out to my noble friend that it was in the manifestos of three parties at the last UK general election and endorsed. It is not intended that these powers will be made available next year in the midst of a recession. My noble friend must remember that the power to put tax up is also the power to bring tax down. Therefore, the question he is putting to the three people in Edinburgh is wrong on so many points.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend has been here too long if he thinks that the electorate reads the manifestos of the political parties and bases its votes on that. As for the point that the power could be used to bring tax down, the Government are asking the Scottish Parliament to find deficit reduction expenditure of about £3 billion. On my calculations based on his figures, that would amount to a 7p increase in the rate of tax just on deficit reduction. While we are on the subject of Calman, my noble and learned friend says that it is not being implemented now, so that is all right because it will be not in his term of office but in 2016; someone else will have to explain the consequences of this policy.

My noble and learned friend says that the deficit will have been dealt with by then. He cannot have it both ways. He has told us that there is a great consensus for Calman. Calman says that we should move to a needs-based system of funding for the Scottish Budget. Furthermore, from the work of Professor Bell and others we know that that would result now in a reduction of £4.5 billion in the Scottish Budget, which is a lot to find in income tax. That is the Government’s policy for the longer term, so we are going to have to have a higher rate of income tax in order to stay exactly where we are. I do not think that this has been thought through.

There are very few things that I agree on with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, but when he says that you cannot run an economy on a narrow tax base like income tax and that you need to have wider tax powers, he is correct. I am against having wider tax powers for the reasons that I will give shortly. I say to my noble and learned friend—and I will table some amendments in Committee—that he should consider whether it might not be right to have a referendum before these proposals on income tax can be implemented and, certainly in line with our policy on local government, to have a referendum if the Scottish Parliament chooses to set a rate of income tax that is higher than it is for the rest of the United Kingdom.

There is another aspect of taxation in this Bill that absolutely terrifies me; it gives the Scottish Parliament the power to invent new taxes altogether with no reference to anyone—not to the voters or to anything else. My noble and learned friend is shaking his head. Am I wrong about that? If they decide to introduce a local income tax, which is their declared policy, as I thought on these Benches—I am not sure what the coalition Government’s position is on local income tax, but the Conservative Party has always been opposed to local income tax because we would have all the problems that we have just been hearing—we could be faced not only with having the highest rate of income tax in the United Kingdom but with having a local income tax on top of that. I see that my noble and learned friend is reading the Bill. I hope he realises that the Bill actually provides for the creation of new taxes. It specifies particular taxes in respect of land and landfill.

On top of all that, we have powers of borrowing, which are described as positive—and here I did disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson. I think that the Scottish Government must be the only Government legislating on the planet that thinks that now, with a huge financial crisis and huge economic problems, is the moment to have higher taxes and higher borrowing. That is what this Bill provides for. When my noble and learned friend says that the powers might be used to cut taxes and cut borrowing, what planet is he living on? I do not know a single serious politician looking at the Scottish Budget, at the problems and at all these goodies that the nationalists have provided—such as free prescriptions, free healthcare and free transport, all of which are desirable but none of which are affordable—who could believe that the result of these powers would not be that Scotland would become the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. As the noble and learned Lord said, at the moment Scotland is suffering the worst rate of growth and the biggest threat to employment in the public sector because of the size of the public sector. It just seems plain daft to do this.

Having dealt with taxation, I turn to the issue of referenda. I see that the Bill has sections on elections, on presiding officers, on deputies, on the Supreme Court, on Members’ interests and even on Antarctica. I am delighted to see that Antarctica is not going to be in the province of the Scottish Parliament, having spent my Christmas there. Every corner of the world is covered except vires on referenda, which is the central issue in politics today in Scotland.

Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to clarify the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson? It is perfectly clear to me, from reading the previous Scotland Bill, and as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to run a binding referendum on the issue of independence for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament now has a majority of Members who are committed to doing so. We know that there is going to be a referendum. How can it be in anyone’s interests not to ensure that that referendum is held on a proper basis with a proper campaign and with proper notice? Why on earth are the Government dealing with every other issue, including the name of the Government, but not dealing with the central issue, in my view, and providing the machinery for a referendum on independence? Of course, I am a bit of an extremist on some of these subjects, so I would prefer the Bill to say that the referendum is to be in October next year, because I think that it is deeply damaging to have this uncertainty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sewel]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is that not rather anticipating that the Scottish Parliament would choose to reduce the level rather than to increase it? Is that not a gross assumption?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The indications that have been given to us by those pressing the case for the change are that, to address the serious problems of alcohol misuse in Scotland, it was more likely that the level would be reduced rather than increased. I take the point that that could be a presumption but it is one that is fairly well based.

The noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, all mentioned Clause 17 and the role of the Lord Advocate. Whatever differences there might be in terms of the detail of that particular clause, there was a general agreement that issues relating to convention rights and European Union law should ultimately be litigated in the Supreme Court. That is certainly the conclusion of the expert group, which was set up under Sir David Edward’s chairmanship. Clearly, there will be an opportunity to go into the detail of how that will work in Committee.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, also raised the important point about whether the roles of the Lord Advocate should be split. As was said, this issue has been around for some time. I was rather surprised for it to be raised from the Front Bench at this stage of the proceedings. No doubt, we will again have an opportunity to debate that. As I indicated, the position of the Secretary of State—and the Government—is that, if novel proposals are to come forward at this stage, the tests are that they should be very detailed in their presentation, command a consensus and not only be for the benefit of Scotland but not prejudice other parts of the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked what other powers there might be. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the issues that the Scottish Government have raised. Again, those tests will apply. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Scottish Government but we await with some interest more detailed proposals. We are still awaiting any submission from them on excise duty. I certainly found the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie very persuasive in the context of the Calman commission, which did not recommend any devolution of excise duties. The tests that I have already outlined will apply to any of these proposals coming forward from the Scottish Parliament, including for example on corporation tax.

In the Government’s mind, the only other taxes which could be devolved are the two which were recommended by Calman but are not in the Bill: aggregates tax, which we did not proceed with because of litigation that is currently in place, and air passenger duty—on the basis that the whole question of aviation taxation was being looked at. Did it make sense to devolve something which was under a much wider consideration?

The noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Wigley, asked about the position in Wales. It was announced back in July that an independent commission will be established in the autumn to look at the financial accountability of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. It will examine the issues of fiscal devolution and accountability, and take into consideration the work of the Holtham commission, mentioned by a number of contributors including my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. The Government are currently discussing the terms of reference and the commission members with the Welsh Government.

Important points were made by my noble friends Lady Linklater of Butterstone and Lord Lindsay about the recommendations within the Calman commission relating to non-legislative but important matters regarding links between parliaments and governments in Scotland and at Westminster. I can assure your Lordships that we take this matter seriously. Since the Government came to office in May 2010, we have committed ourselves to upholding an agenda of mutual respect and engagement with all the devolved Administrations.

We have successfully resolved some disputes under the new dispute resolution procedure that had been put in place by the previous Government: there have been two joint ministerial committees in plenary session since May 2010; the joint ministerial committee on Europe continues to meet regularly; the joint ministerial committee (domestic) has met twice; and, consistent with the Calman commission recommendations, we have issued communiqués after plenary meetings and made an annual report on the work of the JMC. I will be happy to give further information to my noble friends, but one other thing which I remember the Calman commission was keen on was attendance of Ministers at respective parliaments. We support the attendance of Ministers before committees of the Scottish Parliament. I think I am right in saying that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has given evidence; I certainly gave evidence, along with the Secretary of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to the previous Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament, and I intend to do so again with regard to the new committee.

The electoral system was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. When the Calman commission looked at this, it noted that the Arbuthnott committee said it should be looked at again after the 2011 elections. Therefore, we did not think it appropriate as Calman commissioners to make a recommendation on that. There is an acceptance, following the Arbuthnott committee report and the Calman commission report, that some form of review of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament is required. The matter is under consideration, and the Government will confirm our intentions at a later stage.

It is clear that the key provisions in this Bill relate to finance. I rather thought when I heard my noble friend Lord Forsyth mounting his arguments against the tax-varying powers, as usual with great gusto, that they were very similar to the arguments we had in 1997 against tax-varying powers, so I will not rehearse all of these now. What the commission was faced with was trying to get a proper balance between the efficiency of the tax system and proper accountability. At the core, a number of noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have pointed out the importance of trying to ensure that there is a link between spending money and raising money. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who talked not only about “no taxation without representation” but also about “no representation without taxation”. That link is very important.

What we did within the Calman commission, and which the Government accept, was to look at different international systems. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who compared income tax to the poll tax. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, the thing about the poll tax was that it had no link to income at all, which was one of its problems and its criticisms. Income tax, however, we were advised, was one of the taxes, perhaps more than any other, which actually impacted not only in reality but in perception upon individuals. We thought that in terms of identifying a tax which was most likely to accentuate accountability, income tax was the appropriate tax.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked, “Why the 10p?”. Clearly we are trying to achieve a balance between the Scottish Parliament having responsibility, while recognising that Scottish taxpayers contribute to the United Kingdom as well to a whole range of services which are provided at a United Kingdom level.

The question of the Scottish taxpayer was put very graphically by my noble friend Lord Lyell, with tributes to Andy Stewart. There is a different test from that which applied to the Scottish variable rate, and indeed Clause 32 of this Bill, for such time as the Scottish variable rate will continue, is brought into line with what is proposed in future.

For most people, determining whether or not they are a Scottish taxpayer will be a straightforward matter: it will be whether their sole or main place of residence is in Scotland. If it is in Scotland, they will be Scottish taxpayers. It is not an unusual thing to use a sole or main place of residence for capital gains tax purposes. I think it is also used for when we have to register as Members of this House as to where our transport links will be. So it is not a novel concept. One of those individuals who are UK resident but do not have a close connection with any part of the United Kingdom will need to establish the number of days they have spent in Scotland. Again, I suspect that this is a matter that we will look at in great detail in Committee.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I know that the hour is late but that is not what the Bill says, unless I have misread it. It says that if you have more than one residence you count the number of days that you have spent in those residences.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that my noble friend has that right. The principal point will be whether it is your sole or main residence. As I have just indicated, it is only if you are an individual who does not have a close connection with any part of the United Kingdom that the number of days spent in Scotland will be relevant. We can clearly debate that, as we no doubt will, in greater detail when we come to Committee, but I seek to reassure my noble friend on that. He also said that the SNP would take the power to have new taxes and would implement them willy-nilly. However, the provisions in the Bill make it very clear that the power to have any new taxes will have to be passed not only by the Scottish Government but by both Houses of this Parliament. An order would not be brought forward to this Parliament unless it had the agreement of the UK Government. Therefore, there would have to be negotiation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government before such an order could be brought forward, and it would be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, wished the borrowing powers to be accelerated. My noble friend Lord Younger put his finger on the matter: there is a pragmatic reason for delaying such powers in the context of the current spending review period. The borrowing of the Scottish Parliament would be aggregated with UK borrowing and, given that the borrowing limits have been clearly identified in the current spending review period, we do not think it right to move at this stage to extend the borrowing powers to the Scottish Parliament before 2015. The exception to that—it is perhaps not a proper exception although it is an important point—is that, in response to representations from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, we have made prepayments, or a sort of cash advance, in terms of the money required to do the preliminary work for the building of the new Forth road crossing. That has been widely welcomed and it is a pragmatic response to the situation.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, asked about the administrative burden and cost of income tax powers. Employers and software providers have already made changes to payroll software so that they can operate the existing Scottish variable rate of income tax. Therefore, the existing payroll software provides for a different rate to operate. Additional compliance costs and burdens may arise if the Scottish Government seek to adapt the existing process—for example, to introduce a greater degree of transparency—by requiring the Scottish rate to be separately identified on payslips and P60s. Further costs and burdens could also arise in relation to the treatment of certain tax reliefs.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about the working group. There is a high-level implementation group, which involves a number of bodies and organisations with an interest in the detailed implementation of the tax reliefs. It has already met three times and is due to meet again in the autumn. There is also a joint Exchequer group involving Ministers in the Scottish Government, the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. The group will look at the negotiation of the detailed implementation of these plans. I think that it is due to meet again shortly in the autumn. In addition, separate groups have been looking at issues such as tax on charitable giving and other such detailed issues. These groups have already met, and I assure the House and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that those meetings will continue.

Finally on finance, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked about the workings of the Scottish rate. He asked, as with chicken or egg, which would come first—the reduction or the block grant. Unlike the Scottish variable rate, the Scottish rate of income tax will require an annual decision from the Scottish Parliament. The proportionate amount will be deducted from the block grant and, if the Scottish Parliament does not set a rate, it will not get the money. It will be obliged to set the rate and to do so in good time before the start of the tax year—again, giving proper notice in terms of collection and to businesses which will have to administer the system.

Related to that, the question of bond issuing was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. Although the Bill makes provision for that to be implemented—not by having further recourse to primary legislation but by secondary legislation—it will be dependent on the outcome of a consultation, which is either under way or is about to get under way, regarding the merits of going down that road, taking into account some of the points which the noble Baroness raised.

Linked to this is the question of the Barnett formula, raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Maclennan, Lord Forsyth, Lord Caithness and Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. Under the proposals in the Bill, as I have indicated, the Scottish rate of income tax will be reduced by 10p. It will then be for the Scottish Government to decide to levy in Scotland. I am sure a number of noble Lords will wish to debate this further. The Government have made clear in the coalition agreement that we recognise the concerns about devolution funding, but the priority has to be to reduce the deficit and to stabilise the public finances.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that something should be in the Bill about the formula. The position is that the Scotland Act contains nothing about it and that the Bill, if implemented, is neutral about its future. There will be a block grant but the formula to determine it can be done externally to the provisions in the Bill. We have been duly warned by at least one if not two noble Lords that we will have amendments on this. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others are liable to bring forward amendments on the question of a referendum. A number of noble Lords have pressed a case for the United Kingdom Government holding a referendum on independence. Their argument is that it is in Scotland’s interests to end the constant constitutional uncertainty and that a clear-cut question will produce a clear-cut endorsement of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

I understand the motivation of those who have argued that case. Many, including the Government, would like nothing more than to see an end to the manoeuvring of separation, which for so long has distracted Scotland from the many other opportunities and challenges on which we might more fruitfully and productively focus. As this debate broadens out beyond this Chamber to the political classes, more questions will be put to the SNP Government, as we saw last week, with important speeches by representatives of the CBI. The dangers of continued uncertainty will become more obvious to people across Scotland if the SNP—“rather coy”, was how the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, described it— carries on ducking questions. It will need to be clear about its plans and its timings.

Perhaps it is too ambitious to hope that tomorrow, when he announces his programme for government, the First Minister will start to say something about that. As noble Lords have indicated, there are crucial questions about the euro or the pound, and about whether it would be the European Central Bank or the Bank of England that would have responsibility. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury raised these questions last week. We will continue to press the Scottish Government on these issues. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, about the importance of all us waking up to the challenges and positively making the case for the United Kingdom, and for Scotland being part of that.

[Lord Soley]

Will the Minister say what his thinking is about the Electoral Commission’s involvement in any referendum?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is an important issue. Under present legislation, the Electoral Commission could be involved in a limited way only if the Scottish Government wished to proceed on their own. The commission is building up an expertise in referendums and has much to contribute, not least in helping to frame questions. In making the case for the union, as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, said, we must challenge the independence case, because you cannot be a little bit pregnant and cannot be a little independent—the independence-lite or devo-max, which seems to be somewhat undefined. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, made an important point, saying that in the United Kingdom we have the most effective political and economic union that the world has ever seen. If we had not had it, today’s debate would be about creating it. When you have peoples bound by a common language in one island or closely proximate islands, why would you not want to come together and be a union, certainly when you look around the world and see other islands or peninsulas that are divided? The thoughtful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, set out the economic, social and cultural cases for union, which are, indeed, set out in the first volume of the first report by the Calman commission. It was a very good exposition of the positive reasons why Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, and I entirely endorse what he said: that we cannot frighten people into supporting the United Kingdom and have to give people an aspirational and inspirational reason for why we believe that this valuable union has served Scotland well over the past 300 years and will serve us well into the future.

I conclude by saying that the genesis of this was in co-operation among parties. I believe and hope that that will continue. I have every confidence that it can continue into the future. My noble friend Lord Sanderson said that the test of this Bill would be whether its passing would help or hinder the cause of the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right. That reflects the terms of reference of the Calman commission. They were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and were:

“To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.

Those were not only the guiding lights of the Calman commission but are the guiding lights of this Government and, I believe, of this House as we approach this Bill. I believe the Bill delivers on that and that in our deliberations in Committee, we can ensure that it does. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 2 and 9. I am sorry—I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 2 and 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the continuing operation of the provisions of the Bill should be dependent upon periodic resolutions of each House of Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, what it is when one does not have the crib sheet Depending on which way we vote, if the opinion of the House is tested, we may—or may not—be approaching the home straight of this Bill. However, it is worth putting on record that it is exactly one year ago this week, on 22 July, that the Bill was introduced in the other place. By any reckoning, for a Bill of seven clauses and one schedule this is quite some time. We are now down to the fact that there is one remaining and outstanding issue. Your Lordships’ Amendments 1, 2 and 9 provide that the provisions of the Bill are subject to a sunset clause after the next general election, and each subsequent Parliament would have a choice whether to be a fixed-term Parliament or not. These amendments were passed by your Lordships’ House by a majority of six. The other place has considered these and has sent back a strong message in relation to this group of amendments, which they voted to disagree by 312 votes to 243. The reason on the Commons Disagreement and Reasons paper indicates that Commons disagreed because they,

“do not consider it appropriate that the continuing operation of the provisions of the Bill should be dependent upon periodic resolutions of each House of Parliament”.

I am, perhaps not surprisingly, in accord with this view.

It is worth remembering that the Government have been prepared to consider amendments which improve the Bill, and indeed we have taken on board a number of your Lordships’ suggested amendments. We were persuaded that the provision to allow the Prime Minister to move the date of the election earlier by order was unnecessary, and that if there was to be an order to delay by up to two months, it should be accompanied by a statement of reasons. We have tabled amendments to put back elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly from May 2015 to May 2016. This issue was of concern not only in the other place but also when the Bill came here for Second Reading. In particular, and thanks in many respects to the work done by and discussions between the former distinguished Speakers the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who took the initiative with an amendment, and others, we redrew the architecture of the circumstances in which a vote of no confidence or of dissolution could trigger or lead in turn to an election. This indicates that the Government have been willing to listen, and on these points the other place has recognised that this House has done its task as a revising Chamber and has agreed to these amendments.

However, we were not prepared to support amendments that we believe undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill—a purpose which was welcomed by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in another place and has obviously been supported there. That purpose is that the fixed-term Parliament is not for this Parliament only but, subject of course to the fact that any legislation can be repealed by a future Parliament, it should nevertheless apply to future Parliaments. Further, the purpose is to make fixed terms for the United Kingdom Parliament the norm, just as they are for local government, the devolved legislatures set up by this Parliament, and the European Parliament. This will deny the Executive the ability to choose a date for a general election to suit its own political ends. It will create certainty as to how long a Parliament should last. I ask your Lordships to recall that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, noted that we should not forget that the Prime Minister is surrendering a significant power in this Bill.

I also remind your Lordships about what my noble friend Lady Stowell said in Committee. She noted that this Bill will,

“ensure that the Government and the Opposition had to face the electorate on a predetermined date, whatever the political conditions are at that time. That is the most compelling thing about fixed-term Parliaments”.—[Official Report, 15/3/11; col. 223.]

In addition to this, many of your Lordships noted that the certainty of a fixed-term Parliament would create better facility to plan across Government, within Parliament, and beyond. By contrast, if these amendments are accepted, the electorate turning out in May 2015 will not know what they were voting for. Will they be giving the next Parliament a fixed and predictable term within which to govern or will they be handing to the leader of the next Government a trump card; namely, the ability to call an election whenever he or she thinks it is most opportune?

During the debates on this on Report, I indicated that the assumption behind these amendments must be that in the event a subsequent Parliament is not a fixed-term Parliament, the current rules about calling elections should apply to that Parliament. I again highlight what a somewhat anomalous and strange position this will result in. In particular, we presume that the drafters of the sunset—they are sometimes referred to as sunset or sunrise—provisions would mean that the royal prerogative power to dissolve Parliament would be summoned back into existence for that subsequent Parliament. I assume that that must be the intention, for how else would Parliament be dissolved other than by the prerogative unless the drafters intend Parliament only to end by reaching the five-year limit set in the revised septennial Act?

I wish to make two points about this. First, is it right that the existence of a royal prerogative be dependent on resolutions of each House not being carried? It seems very undesirable to the Government that the prerogative power may sometimes not exist and sometimes be revived in this way. Secondly, if this is the intention of the drafters, it is not at all clear that it has been achieved in the drafting that they have provided. In particular, the presumption in Section 16 of the Interpretation Act is that where an enactment of a temporary duration, which the provisions abrogating the dissolution prerogative appear to be, expires, it does not ordinarily revive anything not in force at the time of the expiry. Admittedly, that may seem to be a technical point but I urge noble Lords to consider that what is being proposed here is far from straightforward and hidden complexities abound. We should be very careful before giving our approval to what, perhaps at the very least, can be described as a constitutional novelty.

As I have indicated, it is important to note that this Parliament did not include sunset clauses when legislating for the fixed terms for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, in this Bill we are extending the fixed term of this parliamentary term for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly but doing so by primary legislation. I have heard no convincing arguments to explain why we should sunset the fixed terms of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Is a sunset clause necessary to ensure that the issue of fixed terms, and the merits of this piece of legislation, are properly reviewed? Arguably, it is not. This Bill has received thorough scrutiny by four Select Committees—your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the PCR in the other place, the JCHR and the Delegated Powers Committee. It has had all of its stages on the Floors of the respective Houses and the Government have reflected during the progress of the Bill and, as I have indicated, have made amendments where they feel that these improve the overall package.

If a future Parliament decides that it wishes to move away from fixed terms, or if it wishes to amend what we have provided for, we cannot bind its hands. Perhaps it has not been said in this Chamber but it has been said in some of the commentary that somehow we are trying to bind the hands of future Parliaments. Perhaps I may make it clear that that is not the case, nor is it the intention. It is clear that we believe that, if there is to be a change, it should be done through primary legislation, and can be done by means of primary legislation.

A change to the fundamental structure of Parliament is not a small matter and we believe that it should be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. It should not be a default option if a resolution fails to be tabled or passed to sunrise provisions for fixed terms. Many noble Lords have expressed concern about what these amendments would mean for the relationship with the other place. Arguments have been made that by providing that the Bill could be revived only with a resolution of both Houses, we could be undermining the primacy of the other place. This House would be given a power to veto the will of the other place on this matter. I would ask your Lordships to recall comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who has contributed notably in our debates on this Bill, when he spoke in the debate on 22 June on the reform of your Lordships’ House. I think that what he said would be echoed by noble Lords across the Chamber.

“We are a revising Chamber and a debating Chamber, and valuable in both functions, but we cannot prevail against the House of Commons if it wishes to insist. The House of Commons is sovereign in the matter of law-making”.—[Official Report, 22/6/11; col. 1257.]

In the case of this Bill, the other place has clearly indicated that it wants to establish fixed terms as a rule that applies equally to each Parliament. Both your Lordships’ House and the other place finally decided that it would not be appropriate to include a sunset provision in the European Union Bill. In the final debate on that Bill, my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick wisely noted that a sunset provision was not appropriate because it would provide for primary legislation to be reversed by a simple resolution. That is the same effect as the sunset amendment would have on this Bill, turning important amendments to the statute book on and off, perhaps somewhat akin to a light switch. It is also worth noting the report of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place on the European Union Bill. Again, I quote:

“All Parliaments legislate for the future. Laws passed by one Parliament do not contain a sunset clause at the Dissolution. The real point is whether a government can, in law, make it difficult for a future Parliament to amend or repeal the legislation it has passed; in our view it cannot. Our conclusion therefore is straightforward—that an Act of Parliament applies until it is repealed”.

That should be said also of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Should a future Parliament wish to amend or repeal the legislation, it can do so, but it should do so through the normal legislative process, not simply by passing a resolution.

I repeat that, in a number of respects, this House performed valuably the revising and reforming function to legislation which is at the core of your Lordships’ business and that the Government responded to these proposals, but the amendments run contrary to the spirit of the Bill and raise more questions than they answer. Your Lordships have raised a matter of concern and have asked the other place to reconsider its position. The other place has done so. Consistent with the role of your Lordships under our parliamentary system, a role which many noble Lords have been at pains to suggest does not amount to the making of law but only to its scrutiny, I urge your Lordships to accept the verdict of the other place and not to insist on the amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I recall that but he voted in favour of the amendment. So I think you can say where his heart lay in relation to this.

Moving away from the technical points to the point of this Bill, let us think about history for a moment. In 1924, the Labour Government were defeated in a vote because the Labour Prime Minister had interfered with the Attorney-General in the exercise of his discretion. The moment he was defeated on the Floor of the House of Commons, there was a general election and the Conservative Party was returned to power. Imagine if Mr Ramsay MacDonald had been faced with the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in 1924: first, being defeated on the proposition that he had interfered with the Attorney-General would not have led to a general election. There would had to have been a vote of no confidence put down by the Opposition. Let us assume that that had passed but that would not have been the end of it. Mr Ramsay MacDonald would then have had 14 days to try to cobble together a bit of support. Let us remember that he had a small majority in relation to this. He could have tried to survive on that basis. Is it seriously being said that that sort of behaviour would have led to the public having more confidence in the Government?

Moving forward in time to 1974, Mr Edward Heath perfectly legitimately wanted to test who governed the country because the country was in a major crisis in relation to the miners’ strike. Despite the fact that he legitimately wanted to go to the country, he could not have gone because he would not have been allowed to under this Bill unless he had tabled a vote of no confidence in his own Government. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who said that perhaps he could have done that. But what would people think of a Government who put down a Motion of no confidence in themselves?

Finally, the father of my noble friend Lady Jay in 1979 was defeated in a vote of confidence on the Floor of the House of Commons. The most quoted extract from political history in the course of this debate was what Mr James Callaghan said when he was defeated. He said, “I have been defeated in the House of Commons. I must now take my argument to the people”. After this Bill has been passed he would have to say, “Now that I have been defeated on a vote of no confidence, I must see if I can scrabble together a majority to stay in power because this beastly Act gives me 14 days in which to try to do it”.

Okay, I say to the coalition, have your miserable Act so that you can stick together until 5 May 2015, because we respect your right to force that upon us. However, there is nothing unconstitutional in saying that it is appropriate for this House to stick with the principle that says, after that, let the next Parliament decide whether it wants to continue with what I say is a terrible Act. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in his excellent sunset clause.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, once again on this subject, we have had a very full and interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have made important contributions to it.

It is clear that a number of noble Lords who spoke in the debate approached the amendment on the basis of whether they supported fixed-term Parliaments. My noble friend Lady Stowell and my noble friend Lord Dobbs gave compelling reasons why they believe in fixed-term Parliaments, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, departing from his party’s manifesto at the last election, indicated that he is now not quite so sure about them. When the House was debating whether the fixed term should be four or five years and the noble and learned Lord was asked whether, if five years was passed rather than four, a future Labour Government would try to bring it back to four, I remember his not being able to give an answer. If this Bill is passed and the amendment which we are currently debating is not included, I cannot see a future Government trying to repeal it either.

Back in 1992, as my noble friend Lord Rennard reminded us, fixed-term Parliaments was a policy of the Labour Party on which it fought the election; it is a policy which my party has espoused for many years; and it is a policy of the coalition. The argument that the legislation was meant to last only until 5 May 2015 is nonsense. The coalition agreement makes a clear commitment to legislate for fixed-term Parliaments in the future. The title of the Bill refers to fixed-term Parliaments in the plural, so it was never intended simply to be a fix for the current Parliament. Many of the arguments brought forward, particularly when we were debating four or five years, related to the ability to plan government business over a period of time. Whether one could test the feasibility of that in this first Parliament, when we do not have the Bill on the statute book, is doubtful.

I want to put to rest the idea that the Bill was meant to be for only one Parliament. It is very clear in the coalition agreement that it was intended for future Parliaments, subject crucially to the fact that no Parliament can bind its successor, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said. The important point here is that if a Parliament cannot bind its successor and future Parliaments do not want fixed-term Parliaments, they should bring forward legislation. That would be the proper way of scrutinising whether the fixed-term Parliament has worked. As things stand with this amendment, no resolution whatever would be required if one did not wish to continue with fixed-term Parliaments. There would be no post-legislative scrutiny, no opportunity to consider whether the idea had delivered what those of us who support it claim it would. If one had to bring forward a Bill repealing the legislation, it would provide ample opportunity to debate the pros and cons.

I say with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the idea that, somehow, Acts of Parliament should be suspended or ended at Dissolution and that, if you wanted to continue them into a future Parliament, you should bring back a new Bill to do it, rather than what we have thought for years, which is that if you wish to repeal an Act of Parliament you do so by primary legislation, was a very novel constitutional proposal which I certainly would not like to argue before the Constitution Committee if it became an act of faith.

[Lord Goldsmith]

It is the answer to the point that is being made. The amendment as it stands enables future Parliaments to decide whether to go the same way without having to go through the full process. The objection that is raised is that that might lead to the Commons taking one view and the Lords another, to which I say, in those circumstances, one should pass an Act. The Parliament Act could be used and the Commons could have its primacy through that proper route.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the more appropriate approach is in the ABC of constitutional law, whereby, if one does not like legislation passed by a previous Parliament, one brings forward primary legislation to repeal it and does not simply let it lapse, particularly on matters of such constitutional importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I said there was no evidence of this power having been abused. Indeed, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that Prime Ministers who have attempted to string things out, who have dithered, hesitated and dragged out the life of their Governments until the last possible moment, have usually been heavily punished by the electorate for doing so?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Prime Ministers have tried to divine the times to see when would be the best time to call an election. Indeed, in an earlier debate I quoted from the book of my noble friend Lord Lawson, The View from No. 11: Memoirs of a Tory Radical. He said about the then Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher:

“Her view was that a Government should always wait until the final year of the quinquennium, but once there should go as soon as it is confident it will win”.

In other words, a partisan political judgment was clearly being made. As my noble friend reminded us, in September/October 2007, Mr Gordon Brown did a calculation in the third year of that Parliament as to whether or not it would be in his party’s best interests to go to the country. There is more to this. The power that the Prime Minister is giving up as a result of this Bill, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, at Second Reading, is important.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that it was not much of a power, and then he said that no Prime Minister would have a straight face in trying to reverse the situation in the future. He is absolutely right. If a fixed-term Parliament became law, it would be very difficult for someone to come before the House and say that they wanted to revert to the position where the Prime Minister could choose the date of the election because of party advantage. They would get pretty short shrift—it would be difficult to do—but no one denies that, constitutionally, it is perfectly possible. It would be perfectly proper for them to seek to do it and to argue their case. However, my point is that they should do it by proper means through primary legislation and not in the way proposed by the amendment to the Motion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Why does my noble and learned friend use the phrase “because of party advantage”? What happens if a Prime Minister thinks it is the country’s advantage—as happened in 1974 when the Prime Minister felt that the issue of the power of the unions needed to be settled? Why take that away? Secondly, I struggled with the speech of my noble friend Lady Stowell when she said that having a fixed-term parliament would restore people’s trust in Parliament. How does giving people absolute job security for five years help to restore people’s trust? Can my noble and learned friend explain that to me?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the answer is the same to both parts of my noble friend’s question. On the position in February 1974, which has been raised in the debate, if the Conservative Prime Minister of the day believed that it was necessary for an election, it is beggaring belief to suggest that the Labour Party would not also have agreed to an election and that the 75 per cent majority for a dissolution would not have been achieved. This does not mean absolute job security for five years because, if a Government lose confidence, the Bill contains within it mechanisms which can lead to an election. This can also happen if there is an agreement—as I believe would have been the case in March 1979. The then Prime Minister, Mr James Callaghan, could have said that he had lost a vote of confidence and that the following day he would table a Motion for dissolution, which I am sure would have been overwhelmingly carried by more than the majority required under the Bill. To suggest that he would have had to go scrabbling around trying to find a means of living on until October would not have been the case. There are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with that kind of situation.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, sought to dismiss the suggestion that there could not be tensions between the two Chambers, although I do not think that he actually denied that that was a possibility. However, he did say that this House would not stand in the way of a newly elected Government who sought to establish a fixed-term Parliament. Part of the problem with the noble Lord’s answer, apart from suggesting that this House might simply rubber-stamp the Bill—heaven forbid—is that the amendment does not say that the resolution would be brought forward by a newly elected Government. It actually says that it would have to be brought forward at some time during the Parliament. Therefore it might be brought forward some years into the Parliament. At that point, who is to say that this House might not think that they were at it at the other end, bringing forward the resolution for partisan advantage? This House might take a different view about that in those circumstances. Therefore it does change the balance.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked whether this does not parallel the position in the Parliament Act when Parliament was extending the lifetime of a Parliament. The point is that the exception in Section 2 of the 1911 Act is to,

“a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years”.

There is a crucial difference between a Bill that extends a Parliament beyond five years and a resolution as to whether there should be a fixed-term Parliament. In that respect, it is not proper that this House should be given a veto in these circumstances.

I have already indicated that this course can be revived in each succeeding Parliament. It is not just a case of seeing how the Parliament from 2010 to 2015 would go. It may not happen under the amendment here—there may not be a fixed-term from 2015 to whenever—but it could be revived in the following Parliament. It is another unsettling uncertainty about this Bill that it can switch on and off fundamentally important constitutional proceedings.

There has been considerable debate on this Bill. As I indicated, it was introduced a year ago this week. It had its Second Reading in another place in September last year, extra time was made available in Committee, and Report and Third Reading in the other place took place in January. In your Lordships’ House, the Bill was introduced in January, Second Reading took place in March, the Committee sat on three days in March, Report was heard on two days in May and Third Reading also took place in May. It has been very fully debated. I note that the noble Baroness, the chair of the Constitution Committee, referred to the committee’s report on the process of constitutional change, which I believe was published overnight. One of the conclusions was as follows:

“We stress the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of all bills”—

and this Bill has been subject to considerable parliamentary scrutiny for a Bill of only seven clauses and one schedule—

“but we do not recommend that any new parliamentary procedures such as super-majorities should apply to significant constitutional bills”.

I cannot think of any more noted significant new parliamentary procedure than the one that is promoted by this amendment. If the Constitution Committee is sceptical about using new parliamentary procedures with regard to even very sensitive and important constitutional Bills, this is one about which we certainly should be very sceptical. I do not believe the view of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that we are doing a service to the constitution by saying that we do not have to go to the length of repealing. Repealing is what we do if we do not like legislation that was passed by previous Parliaments. If we depart from that principle on a matter of constitutional importance, I believe we should only do so with very great caution. I would urge your Lordships not to insist on the amendment because I do not believe that the case has been made for such a serious constitutional departure.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I agree that this has been a very good debate. I do not need to go over the arguments again except perhaps to assure the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that, like Mark Twain’s death, reports of the advantage to a Prime Minister of being able to decide when to call an election in the last year are greatly exaggerated. Certainly such reports did not prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, from packing her bags on the morning of a general election in preparation for the election not going the way she expected.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who spoke about the report from your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution. The Minister quoted one of its conclusions in his last remarks, but I would like to quote the two main conclusions. The Minister said that the Select Committee on the constitution in another place endorsed the proposal, but I shall quote what your Lordships’ committee said. If I may say so, your Lordships’ committee contains distinguished constitutional lawyers from all parties, who trump those who are members of the constitution committee in another place. They said:

“We take the view that the origins and contents of this Bill owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand”.

The committee continued by saying that,

“the balance of the evidence we heard does not convince most of us that a strong enough case has yet been made for overturning an established constitutional practice and moving to fixed-term Parliaments”.

There could hardly be two more damaging sentences.

Our national constitution is too important to be tinkered with as a bargaining chip in the negotiations of a temporary coalition. The British people have decisively prevented that from happening to the voting system for the House of Commons. They are not to be given a chance to express a view on this constitutional change, so it falls to your Lordships to insist that the Government and the House of Commons refrain from making a permanent change and give future Parliaments and Governments the opportunity to make these decisions for themselves. I would like to seek the opinion of the House.

Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 9 and 10 June be approved.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July

Motions agreed.

Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011.

Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers the draft Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011. I shall also speak to the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2011. The former order was laid before the House on 9 June and the latter on 10 June. I will provide an explanation of both orders.

The orders are made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides that the Secretary of State can make such provision as is “necessary or expedient” in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Merits Committee has reviewed these orders and has not noted them as being of special interest.

I begin with the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011. This order is made in consequence of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, which for convenience I shall refer to as the 2010 Act.

The 2010 Act reformed Scots law in respect of persons being questioned by police constables in Scotland on suspicion of having committed an offence. In particular, the 2010 Act enshrined a right to legal advice for suspects prior to and during questioning by a Scottish police constable. It made provision for an order-making power in respect of legal advice and assistance for suspects wishing to exercise this right, and extended the period for which persons could be detained by a police constable in Scotland. The 2010 Act was enacted by the Scottish Parliament in response to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate, with a view to ensuring that the law of Scotland is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The policy objectives of this order are two-fold. First, this order brings Scots law, in respect of persons questioned by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency on suspicion of having committed a revenue and customs offence in Scotland, into line with the law applying to criminal investigations carried out by police constables in Scotland following enactment of the 2010 Act. The order seeks to deliver this policy objective by, first, enshrining in the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 the right to legal advice for persons questioned by HMRC and UKBA on suspicion of having committed a revenue and customs offence in Scotland, and, secondly, by extending the period of time for which a person can be detained by HMRC and UKBA officers under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 from six hours to a 12-hour period of detention, with the potential to extend to 24 hours in certain circumstances with the appropriate authority.

As regards expanding Scottish Ministers’ power under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 to make regulations disapplying the financial eligibility criteria for advice and assistance to HMRC and UKBA suspects, this provision will be underpinned by a ministerial agreement and administrative arrangement that the provision of legal aid for HMRC and UKBA suspects in Scotland will be on equivalent terms to the provisions made for legal aid in relation to persons detained by police constables in Scotland. It extends the right to access advice and assistance, without means testing, to HMRC and UKBA suspects by amending the Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2011; and by including HMRC and UKBA suspects in the duty which has been placed upon the Scottish Legal Aid Board by the Duty Solicitors Regulations 2011 to ensure the availability of advice.

The second policy objective of this order is to update the law in cross-border cases to bring parity between the powers of the Scottish police, HMRC and UKBA acting within Scotland and the powers of the Scottish police, HMRC and UKBA exercising cross-border powers of arrest and detention elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The 2010 Act amended the powers of Scottish constables only when detaining or arresting suspects in Scotland. The period for which Scottish constables, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and UKBA can detain suspects in cross-border cases is now markedly out of step with the detention period permitted in Scotland following the coming into force of the 2010 Act.

Cross-border detention provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Finance Act 2007—which applies, with modifications, the cross-border provisions in the 1994 Act to HMRC and UKBA cross-border cases—allow for the detention of suspects for only four hours where a suspect's detention commences in England or Wales; and for six hours where detention commences in Northern Ireland. This applies regardless of whether the suspect is taken for interview to a police station in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or is taken back to a police station in Scotland. Cross-border detentions usually arise in relation to the most serious types of cases and the current detention period raises significant challenges due to the need to allow access to a solicitor before and during questioning, which has a negative impact on the time available to conduct effective investigations.

The 2010 Act ensures that suspects are able to obtain legal advice before and during questioning by the police in Scotland. This order ensures that the right to legal advice is available to suspects who are being questioned by Scottish constables, HMRC officers conducting revenue and customs investigations and UKBA designated customs officials conducting customs related criminal investigations in a cross-border scenario as well as in Scotland. This order brings the cross-border detention provisions for Scottish constables, HMRC and UKBA customs and revenue officers into line with the provisions in the 2010 Act, thereby ensuring consistency of approach for the detention and arrest of suspects throughout the United Kingdom in investigations carried out by Scottish police forces, HMRC officers and UKBA designated customs officials.

The order also ensures that when a suspect is to be transported to Scotland for questioning, their right to have another person informed of their arrest or detention arises at the point of arrest or detention. This differs from the position where a suspect is detained in Scotland or questioned in England, Wales or Northern Ireland where the right of intimation to another person arises upon arrival at a police station. It is considered more appropriate and proportionate to grant this right at the point of arrest or detention where a suspect is to be transported to Scotland, particularly where such transportation may take a number of hours. The order will specify that the entitlement to have intimation sent to a solicitor and a reasonably named person, as well as their right to have another person informed of their arrest or detention, arises at the point of arrest or detention. This amendment avoids the provision of these entitlements being delayed until arrival at a police station, as is the current position. This amendment is both necessary and expedient as a direct consequence of the amendments to the 2010 Act. It ensures that a suspect is detained in a manner which is compliant with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The order will extend the period of time for which a person can be detained under cross-border enforcement powers to 12 hours, with the potential to extend to 24 hours in certain circumstances, with the appropriate authority. As at present, detention will begin on arrival at a police station, either in Scotland or in another part of the United Kingdom, and the suspect must be transported to the police station,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.

While the 2010 Act ensured that the system of arrest and detention in Scotland is compatible with Article 6, as expressed by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice also announced a review of Scottish criminal law and practice, which is being led by Lord Carloway, a senior High Court judge. He is expected to report later this year.

In the context of Lord Carloway’s review into this matter, the United Kingdom Government consider that it is sensible to do all that they can until Lord Carloway reports and his findings can be acted on, and to ensure that reserved bodies carrying out reserved functions in Scotland can continue to do so effectively and in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment in Cadder.

Once the Carloway Review Reference Group reports its findings, it is likely that the provisions of the 2010 Act and this order will need to be reviewed. However, in the interim, this order will amend powers of detention to ensure that HMRC, the UKBA and the Scottish police can continue to effectively carry out their functions to investigate serious crime, both in Scotland and in cross-border cases, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate.

Perhaps I may now set out the details of the second draft order we are considering, which is made in consequence of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007—the 2007 Act—and regulations made under that Act. The 2007 Act restates and amends the law relating to adoption in Scotland. It also makes further provision in respect of the care of children in Scotland. The process for adoption is updated to allow unmarried and same-sex couples to make an application jointly to adopt a child. The process of assessing prospective adopters and placing children for adoption has also been updated and is now regulated by new regulations made under the 2007 Act.

In addition, the 2007 Act introduces the permanence order to create greater flexibility for children who are looked after away from their home or who require local authority supervision. This new order replaces parental responsibilities orders and freeing orders. Both those orders removed all parental rights and responsibilities from the child’s parents and vested them in the local authority with sole responsibility for the child.

The permanence order now gives the authority the right to determine where the child shall reside allowing authorities to place the child with foster carers, for example. But, at the same time, the courts may vest parental responsibilities and rights in other individuals—for example, foster carers or even the child’s parents. The permanence order will therefore be tailored to meet the needs of each child.

This order therefore makes amendments to legislation for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that the new orders and procedures introduced by the 2007 Act will be given the appropriate recognition and effect. It does not make any new substantive policy changes: it simply updates existing legislation to take account of the changes in Scottish adoption law. The aim is to preserve the effect of current legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and current cross-border processes. For example, many of the amendments relate to social security legislation which relies on references to Scottish adoption legislation to determine the status of claimants. It is appropriate therefore, that benefits legislation is updated so as to include the status of prospective adopters or adopted children under the new legislation where appropriate.

In order to ensure that existing cross-border arrangements are preserved to allow orders affecting adopted or looked-after children to be recognised and given effect where appropriate, the order proposes amendments to legislation for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in respect of the adoption and care of children. Again, the amendments are purely consequential on the changes made by the 2007 Act and its accompanying regulations. This ensures that, where an adoption application is being heard by an English court and the question of parental consent to adoption has already been determined by the Scottish courts, the English court may be satisfied that this part of the adoption process has already been dealt with. Parallel provision allowing the Scottish courts to recognise a decision of an English court on the issue of parental consent in advance of an adoption application is provided for in the Scottish 2007 Act.

I should also make reference here to the previous Section 104 order which modifies provisions in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Northern Ireland adoption order to allow courts to give effect to Scottish permanence orders pending the textual changes which are made in this draft order. This order now makes the necessary textual amendments, which will allow those orders to have effect where appropriate.

Both these orders demonstrate the Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to make the current devolution settlement work successfully for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these orders are a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act and that the practical results are something to be welcomed. I therefore commend both these orders to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the clarity of my noble friend's explanation of the two orders. I also thank him for the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum that sets out their purposes and consequences. There are, consequentially, very few questions that I will raise, because most of the points have been very clearly made.

On the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011, have the recent United Kingdom changes in the proposed availability of legal aid affected, or will they affect in any way, the availability of legal aid to those who are suspected of serious crimes such as those mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum? I note that powers to make regulations disapplying the financial eligibility criteria are referred to, as well as the criteria for giving advice and assistance to such suspects. It is also stated that the provision will be underpinned by a ministerial agreement and an administrative arrangement, and that the provision of legal aid to HMRC and UKBA suspects will be on equivalent terms to the provisions made for legal aid in relation to persons detained by police constables in Scotland. Will the Minister explain whether that agreement has been arrived at and is waiting for its effectiveness only on the passage of this order, or whether it has yet to be agreed—and, if so, with whom? The provisions on detention seem to be eminently sensible. It would be of some interest to know whether they are reciprocal. Does this mirror what happens if suspects are taken into custody by police constables in England?

So far as concerns the second order, again there are very few questions that have not been addressed. I would be interested to know what gave rise to the awareness of the desirability of making this change, which will result in orders being made under the 2007 Act to clarify that the 1978 Act does not apply in present circumstances. Whereas in the case of the first order there was a passage merely of weeks before it was laid, in the case of the other there has been a passage of four years. How is that explicable?

I will ask a procedural question. When changes are made by the Scottish Parliament or Government, is it automatically part of the dialogue between the Scotland Office and these institutions to consider any consequential changes that ought to be made by this Parliament under the provisions of the Scotland Act? Did this have to be drawn to someone's attention? Is it the sort of issue that the Scottish Law Commission might consider on a continuing basis or is it such a relatively minor matter—although the consequences are not unimportant—that difficulties became apparent only in seeking to take into account particular cases of adoption that arose after the law was changed? I recognise that this procedural question does not in any way take exception to the outcomes, which seem eminently sensible.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, after 24 years in the Houses of Parliament I find it a bit of a shock to the system to be the Labour Party spokesperson on anything. I was expecting the doors to open and folk to come from miles around to have a laugh, but there we are. First, I thank the Minister for offering the services of his staff in briefing me on the orders. I would have taken that up, but I felt a twinge of conscience and a bit guilty that the Minister was prepared to inflict that on his staff. I am not sure what they have done to him, but I am grateful for the offer.

I start in reverse order with the adoption and children order. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, about the clarity of the Minister’s explanation. Even though I read the Explanatory Notes and the other literature, hearing the Minister speak was first class in getting a better and fuller understanding of what was being approved. However—as the saying goes—I have some questions. I realise from being here this afternoon that there is a practice of giving notice of questions. I was not aware of that or I would have done so. There are no trick questions; they may come on other occasions but not this evening.

This order brings consistency to the situation vis-à-vis Scotland and its part of the United Kingdom, so it seems routine, but no legislation should be rushed because mistakes happen. It seems to me that the Government are in such a state with their legislative programme that there is a heavy element of rush in the preparation and submission of legislation, but perhaps not the delay of months and years referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. Nevertheless, mistakes happen, and it seems that we have had a conveyer belt this afternoon. If anyone cares to look, a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in last week’s Hansard illustrated the number of times that the Government have broken conventions in terms of time. There seems to be a bit of a rush. Although paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Notes refers to “UK Government Departments” being consulted, there was no consultation elsewhere. I should have thought that on the issue of adoption there could and should have been wider consultation with professionals in the field. I was formerly a councillor in Strathclyde Regional Council which had one of the best social work departments in the whole of Europe. Nevertheless mistakes were made and incidents happened. I should have thought that there could have been more consultation.

One of the curiosities is that on pages 14 and 17 of the order there are Welsh language extracts. Is it because that is how it is presented by the Welsh Assembly or has it been inserted by the Government here? It would seem that there is a gap when it comes to Scottish matters; Scottish Gaelic should have been incorporated there as well. I am not a fanatic about Gaelic, but it is a recognised second language in Scotland, and if it can be encouraged, it should be recognised. The order is almost entirely technical and has our support.

Turning to the criminal procedure order, I have had some advice from the Law Society of Scotland. David Mundell MP advised the other place:

“The current detention period raises significant challenges due to the need to allow access to a solicitor before and during questioning, which has a negative impact on the time available to conduct effective investigations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/7/11; col. 4.]

I have heard from one or two others, as well as the Law Society of Scotland, who seem to maintain that the extension of the detention period from six hours to 12 hours with the option of a further 12 hours is disproportionate. This extension was argued on a number of grounds, one of which was that additional time would be required to secure solicitor access. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland published data last month which showed that 83.5 per cent of detentions are for six hours or less, 15.7 per cent are for more than six but less than 12 hours, and 0.8 per cent are for more than 12 hours. I ask the Minister to outline the consultation process that came up with this time and to say whether it matches anything else so that I can make some kind of a judgment about whether it is standard, justified or just plucked out of a hat. I do not think that it was: it would be wrong to say that. Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency, it would be useful to have a response on that.

Another part of the Law Society of Scotland’s briefing echoes much of what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, said about remuneration and the difficulties for solicitors who get involved in this type of thing. However, I will leave the lawyers to cry on somebody else’s shoulder, not mine.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first and foremost, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, on his maiden speech from the Labour Front Bench. He distinguished previous Labour Governments, but in a non-speaking role as a Whip. I welcome him to his post, and I am sure that, as he says, there will be many future occasions when we will engage in debate. I also thank my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for their general support for the orders and for the important questions they raised.

I will pick up some of the procedural points with regard to this order in relation to the 2007 Act. It has taken so long—it is four years since the passage of the Act—because the Act was not brought into effect for some time after it was passed by the Scottish Parliament. Looking at the order, we see the amount of work that has gone in to trying to make sure that all the different pieces of legislation which are covered by it have been brought together. I am aware that a considerable amount of work has been done on that.

In my opening remarks, I referred to a stop-gap, temporary measure that was passed using the negative procedure earlier this year. That is repealed by this order now that we have the full provisions in place. A considerable amount of work goes on between the lawyers in my department, the Office of the Advocate-General, and the Scottish Government legal department, looking at issues when legislation comes forward. There is also a programme of work on Scotland Act orders to identify priorities in co-ordination between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. Both Governments feed into that programme, which leads to the orders that we take forward. Indeed, I think this morning an order was debated in another place that we will have the pleasure of looking at when we return in the autumn.

With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about Wales, it is my understanding that under the Welsh Assembly, some legislation now is in the Welsh language. It is reflecting that provision from the Welsh National Assembly that these provisions are in this order in Welsh. I have no doubt that if, at some stage, the Scottish Parliament passes a measure in Gaelic—that is on the heading of the primary or secondary legislation—that, too, would find its way into our orders.

I hear the point about the consultation and the Law Society. It has been a matter of routine that the Scotland Office was not consulted on orders which have been taken under the Scotland Act 1998. The majority of them are consequential to legislation which has been passed by the Scottish Parliament. Of course, the 2007 Act was well consulted on, deliberated on and debated as it went through its procedures in the Scottish Parliament. Substantially, this order gives it effect in a number of different ways in relation to United Kingdom legislation, which it was not possible for the Scottish Parliament to do. But the policy matters which are at the core were dealt with by the Scottish Parliament when the Bill went through and became an Act.

On the criminal procedure, publicly funded legal systems will be made available. The 2010 Act includes provisions to amend the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act to confer an order-making power on Scottish Ministers to make legal advice available to any person detained under the amended detention provisions. In such circumstances they may provide without reference to Section 8 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, which sets out the financial eligibility criteria for advice and assistance. The aim of the order-making power is to ensure that financial eligibility requirements would not act as an impediment to the availability of legal advice as a fundamental requirement of the new procedures. It is very obvious that if someone is brought in for detention and needs immediate access to a solicitor, suddenly to start filling in forms could act as an impediment to what is being sought to be achieved. It was considered to be impractical for a solicitor to have to try accurately to verify a suspect’s financial circumstances while they were detained. Of course, there was a need to ensure that all suspects can obtain legal advice. The ongoing, continuing discussions on the detail of the agreement to be reached between Scottish Ministers and the United Kingdom Government—it was agreed in principle that it will happen with the detail—is still to be worked out. When it is concluded it will follow on to this order when it goes through.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, raised the period of detention. It is perhaps useful to remind ourselves that the 2010 legislation was emergency legislation in the Scottish Parliament—I think that it was passed in a day. Prior to introducing the emergency legislation in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government consulted with a number of stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Association of Police Chief Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Police Services Authority, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Court Service.

In particular, the Scottish Government consulted with a number of these bodies in respect of the decision to extend the period for which suspects may be detained by the police. During the consultation, ACPOS, the Scottish Police Services Authority and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service considered that an extension of some form was required, although the Law Society considered that any extension should not feature in the emergency legislation. Instead, the Law Society argued that options for change should be considered by a judicially led expert review. This matter is being considered by the Carloway review but the Scottish Government took the view that they did not consider that waiting until such time as the review reports, and reforms coming from the review are passed into law, was a viable option when there was already evidence that the six-hour period of detention in some cases would be too short, particularly in complex cases where a solicitor had to be brought in and, therefore, that underlay the decision to extend the time period.

This order seeks to put in terms of reserve functions, the UKBA and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in exactly the same position with regard to the provisions as is the case with Scottish police officers. The purpose of the order is consistency, which is why we have used and adopted the same time periods as there are for the Scottish police. It is important that there is one set of rules which apply to the questioning of suspects in Scotland. Indeed, it may well be a joint investigation with the police and it would become very complicated if one body was operating under a different set of rules from the other. At the end of the day, the one prosecuting authority—the Lord Advocate and the Procurator Fiscal—will lead and take forward the prosecution.