Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCluskey]

My Lords, I welcome both Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, which, I understand, are being taken together. As for Amendment 8, I wrote to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for Scotland some time ago suggesting that this would be an appropriate power to be included in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. My view, which he has echoed, is that this power, used when thought necessary, could sometimes be useful to speed up cases going through the courts. It is clear that the two law officers, the Advocate-General and the Lord Advocate, can be trusted to use this power only in circumstances where it would serve the interests of justice, namely by preventing delay.

I believe I understand the purpose of this amendment and of Amendment 9, but could the noble and learned Lord explain one or two matters? The first is the exception made in the words that conclude Amendment 8,

“otherwise than on a reference” .

Could he explain precisely the purpose of those words? The second point relates to Amendment 9, to Clause 36. This disapplies subsection (5) to certain appeals taken by either of the two law officers. Why is this particular subsection disapplied? The answers will assist those practitioners who may have been confused by the considerable changes that have taken place, both in the Bill itself initially, and in the proceedings in this House to what is now Part 4 of the Bill.

Would the noble and learned Lord also explain under what circumstances and at whose instance a criminal case might be referred to the Supreme Court before the stage at which the facts of the case have finally been determined, and before the case itself has been finally determined by the court below? May I ask in particular, with regard to the commencement provisions in this Bill, when it is envisaged that Part 4 of the new Act will be brought into force? In asking that, I recognise that the Lord Justice-General—the Lord President—will have a considerable amount of work to do in preparing an act or acts of adjournal to cover the new matters. I have no doubt that he will have to consult widely on that; however, I hope that it could be done within months, rather than in any longer period. When is it envisaged that Part 4 will be brought into force?

I made an error in speaking to the Committee some time ago. I referred at that stage to the judges who had been consulted by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, before he put in his written representations. I mentioned that one of them was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. In fact, the two judges referred to were the Lord Chief Justice of England, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for that mistake.

Finally, I express my thanks to the Advocate-General for Scotland for the very careful and considerate way in which he has dealt throughout with the Bill and all the representations he has received. Two groups made a considerable contribution to the shape of the Bill and I shall mention them in a moment. The Advocate-General said that he would listen, which he undoubtedly did. He also made judgments with which I am happy to say that I agree. The two bodies are those mentioned by him. The group led by Sir David Edward, known as the expert group, made a substantial contribution to analysing the problems. Secondly, there was the group of experts that I had the honour to chair. We could not call ourselves the expert group because that name had already been appropriated by Sir David Edward’s group, so we called ourselves “the Supremes”. However, we kept that name to ourselves for reasons of modesty and to avoid confusion with the pop group of the same name. Between us and with the help of others in your Lordships’ House, we now have in the Bill a scheme for appeals on human rights issues in criminal cases in Scotland in the Supreme Court, and for other compatibility issues, that is greatly superior to the one that somehow found its way unannounced into the Scotland Act 1998. Time will show whether I am right.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, for the reasons set out in his initial remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I also support these amendments. They improve the provisions of the Bill, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd of Duncansby has made a significant contribution over time, as have those others mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I understand that the exercise of a power of this nature has proved beneficial in the past to the administration of justice in Scotland and that it would be to the detriment of the powers if it were not included in the provisions of the Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for their welcome for these amendments. As I indicated, they reflect listening and working together, not only between the various groups but between the Lord Advocate and me and the respective officials in the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made the point that the amendments will allow an opportunity for cases to be expedited in certain circumstances. Very often, these are circumstances in which a number of cases are waiting for a determination before they can be resolved.

The noble and learned Lord asked why the words,

“otherwise than on a reference”,

appear in Amendment 8. As I sought to explain, these relate to circumstances in which a case is being heard by the High Court on appeal. Therefore, it is different from a situation in which the High Court deals with a case on referral. Those words apply to an issue that comes up on an appeal that should be referred to the Supreme Court.

The disapplication of subsection (5) is the subject of Amendment 9. As I tried to explain in speaking to the amendment, it is anticipated that if there has been a referral from a lower court to the High Court on appeal, it will be possible for either law officer then to refer to the Supreme Court without a requirement for leave from either the Supreme Court or the High Court of the Justiciary. I hope that explains it.

The noble and learned Lord also asked when it is anticipated that these changes will come into effect. I cannot give him a clear date but I share his expectation and hope that it can be done in a matter of months. As he rightly points out, there is considerable preparatory work to be done. I strongly suspect that an act of adjournal will be required, which will need work by the Lord Justice-General, the Lord Justice Clerk and the court authorities in Scotland. However, we hope to make good progress in implementing this.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

First, my Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his great courtesy in writing to me extensively on this issue to introduce the arguments that he intended to make in support of his amendment. I was in the privileged position of having almost all of the points that he made in advance of his addressing your Lordships’ House, so I thank him for that. Unfortunately, despite his great courtesy to me, I cannot find myself being in a position of supporting his amendment. I am sure that he will appreciate why since, in Committee, I argued for even greater devolution of responsibility over air weapons to the Scottish Parliament. It would be entirely perverse and inconsistent for me now to support the restriction on the exercise of the limited devolved powers that the Scottish Parliament is going to receive, having made that consistent and coherent point before.

I do not accept the dismissal by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, of this argument as not being sufficient justification, because to restrict the power that one devolves in this fashion undermines devolution. I do this for two reasons. First, if we agree to devolve this power to the Scottish Parliament, we should trust that Parliament with this power. Secondly, I see no reason to believe that the Scottish Parliament would not be persuaded by the arguments that the noble Earl has made about the potentially unintended consequences of an onerous regulatory process. I am sure that, in consultation, it will be capable of regulating in a way that deals with the issue at the heart of the noble Earl’s amendment, although not at the heart of his broader argument about implications.

I do not propose to repeat all the reasons why the people of Scotland are so exercised about the misuse of air weapons, and why there is a public demand for some form of regulation. I and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, have spoken about those before. I congratulate the noble Earl on giving us, in the official record of our debate, a repository of the success of restrictions imposed on air weapons and the obvious effect that sensible regulation has had on their misuse. It would be utterly ungracious of me to point out that I do not remember the Gun Trade Association arguing for these restrictions, and I remember being persuaded on some occasions by lobbying from that area that these restrictions would not work, and would merely cost a lot of money unnecessarily. However, that does not alter the fact that at some stage these arguments may prove to be true, even if they did not in relation to those restrictions.

I congratulate the noble Earl on at least being honest and willing enough to say, from the perspective and interest that he has, that regulation of this nature can be positive and can have a beneficial effect and that if it perhaps has a cost, and if that cost is saving lives or injuries, then it is a cost that society may be prepared to bear.

For the reasons I have given, I am unable to support the noble Earl’s amendment but I congratulate him on his contribution to the debate today, and on providing a quarry of argument which I am sure will inform the Scottish Parliament’s exercise of the powers that I hope it will be given.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for again giving the House the opportunity to discuss these matters. His amendment seeks to ensure that if, following devolution of the regulation of air weapons anticipated by this clause, the Scottish Government were to introduce a system of visitor permits for air weapons, holders of firearms or shot-gun certificates issued in other parts of the United Kingdom would not be required to obtain such a permit in order to use air weapons in Scotland. As has been said, in devolving the regulation of air weapons, the Government are acting on a recommendation of the Calman commission, and we believe that the regulation of air weapons is best controlled locally. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has made a very well reasoned case and, as has been noted, he indicated that where sensible and proportionate restriction or regulation of air weapons has been used, it has been done so to some effect. Nevertheless, it is our view, as indicated earlier and in the Bill, that this issue is better decided by the Scottish Parliament.

I do not think that this is a small point. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the nature of devolution is that a power is devolved, and it is then up to the devolved body to determine how it wishes to exercise that power, obviously within the constraints of the law—and, taking into account some of the very pertinent points made by my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Gardiner of Kimble, when that body comes to make policy conclusions. Not the least of these is the cost effectiveness. My noble friend has focused on the cost implications of establishing and enforcing a licensing regime, and I recognise the points that he has made so clearly. These will be matters for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to take into account. We hear them regularly talking about the restrictions and restraints on their funding, but the block grant will have to fund any measures that they take. This will obviously be one of the considerations that they have, obliged as they will be to put forward with any accompanying Bill a memorandum on its cost implications.

As I know my noble friend is aware, the Scottish Government have set up a Scottish firearms consultative panel, and I understand that the director of the Gun Trade Association, an organisation of which my noble friend is the honorary president, sits on that panel. The panel is currently considering, if there is to be devolution of this power, how best to implement any proposals for regulating air weapons. The panel will consider cross-border issues. Indeed, I understand that there was a meeting on Monday at which cross-border were on the agenda. If this amendment were included in the Bill, it would fetter the Scottish Government’s and Scottish Parliament’s discretion as to how they might go about the task of regulating air weapons following devolution and would second guess the ongoing work of the Scottish firearms consultative panel. However, as I have indicated, the arguments put forward by my noble friend are very persuasively articulated. I am sure that the Scottish Government will be open to representations made to them when they are shaping any legislative proposals.

My noble friend Lord Caithness raised the possible costs that would feed through into other parts of the United Kingdom. Those will of course depend on the actual nature of the policy that is put in place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in his place. He will no doubt correct me if I get this wrong, but perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that, as I understand it, air weapons are controlled in Northern Ireland and any person wishing to go there from Great Britain with an air weapon must apply for a certificate of approval. There is a special form available on the website, which needs to be submitted via a sponsor about six weeks in advance of any visit, but there is no fee. However, a visitor to Northern Ireland from outwith Great Britain requires a visitor’s permit, the point being that air weapons are already devolved to Northern Ireland. I have always believed that one of the strengths of devolution ought to be a willingness to look at experience in other parts of the United Kingdom where policies have been taken forward. Indeed, there is a policy already in place regarding the regulation of air weapons. I hope that what happens in Northern Ireland will be looked at by the consultative panel.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I do not support the noble Lord’s amendment. In case anyone should be in any doubt about this, I do not support a referendum on any aspect of this Bill because I do not think that it is appropriate for us to make any of the provisions of the Bill conditional on a referendum, either by the Scots, the whole of the UK or indeed the English. I shall perhaps have an opportunity to explain later that referendums are for extraordinary circumstances and this is not one of those sets of circumstances.

Secondly, in this context, I would never support a referendum by the people of England in any event because, in my view, that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of devolution. Devolution depends on the relationship between the United Kingdom and Scotland and not between England and Scotland. I am not being pedantic; I could go on to say why England, and not Wales and Northern Ireland. The noble Lord nods so I am sure that he gets the point. This is a vehicle for him to have a wider and broader debate and I understand that. It is important that we do not repeatedly categorise these issues as issues between England and Scotland. This is about devolving power to a part of the United Kingdom and holding that part of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom. We have done it to Northern Ireland and to Wales and we have done it substantially to London in many aspects of public policy.

It is challenging and difficult for this Parliament and for people to understand because it is utterly asymmetric across the country, but, in my view, it is a celebration of the diversity of the United Kingdom. I know that there are those among us—the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is one of them—who would like to see a more federal structure where there was less of an asymmetry and much greater clarity. However, the reality is that many parts of the United Kingdom are not ready for that, as they have made clear to us, and it should not be imposed upon them. Ironically, in the history of devolution in Spain, that sort of structure was imposed on the Spaniards and those who were least interested in it made the most out of it. I say that in passing. So I do not support a referendum. I would certainly not support a referendum by only English voters.

I turn to the no-detriment principle. I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue again. In the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, who is part of our Treasury team and is also a Scottish affairs spokesman, I have to deal with it. I was reluctant to engage myself in the debate the last time it came up, but got slightly frustrated with the misrepresentation of what I thought was the no-detriment principle. I stuck my nose into it, suggesting, indeed, that this letter be written, but it appears that the letter has just given those who wish to misrepresent the no-detriment principle even more ammunition to do it.

The no-detriment principle in this context was first raised, as I understand it, in the Command Paper that accompanied the Bill. My understanding of the no-detriment principle is probably best expressed, interestingly enough, in a paragraph of the Holtham report. This may be entirely the wrong part of the Holtham report for the purpose of the agreement that has now incorporated this into mechanisms for the future between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, but it does what I want it to do. It is paragraph 5.2 of the substantial executive summary of the Holtham report. The executive summary is 72 pages long. I shudder to think what the whole report is like, and I certainly do not intend to spend a weekend between now and the Report stage reading it.

If I have understood the Written Statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the principle of no-detriment is now to be qualified by reference to the Holtham report and the mechanism in it about budgets and block grants. If I have misunderstood that entirely then, at the risk of encouraging the same sort of pantomime that we saw earlier in another place, perhaps someone on the Front Benches could either nod or shake their head, but if I am right this encapsulates the no-detriment principle:

“Risks consequent on the actions of the Assembly Government should be borne by its budget and risks consequent on the action of the UK Government should be borne by UK budgets. Risks outside government control and arising from elsewhere should be pooled across the union”.

It goes on to refer to how difficult that is to do. I accept that it is very difficult, but as I understand it, that is what lay behind the no-detriment principle. If Holtham is now to be incorporated into that agreement, then that may make it easier.

If that is right, with all due respect to the noble Lords who have supported this interpretation, adjusting the block grant for Scotland in response to policy decisions made by the UK Government in no way undermines the accountability of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government. They are accountable for what they do. The point about the no-detriment principle is that they should not be accountable to their electorate for what the UK Government do. We can call it what we like, but that is essentially what this is trying to achieve.

I see the noble Lord moving in his seat. This is what I fear, of course, when I start to get into this area of complexity. Before I allow the noble Lord to intervene, perhaps I may remind the Committee that when we were discussing the developments before we started on the fifth day of Committee I said at the outset that it would be extremely helpful if, between now and the conclusion of the debates on the Bill, the Government set themselves the task of explaining where we are now in relation to this principle and how it works. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will never be satisfied that accountability should be encapsulated only in the actions of the Scottish Parliament. He has a very distinctive view about the Bill and about the Parliament’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, which few of us share. However, some of us could be satisfied that there might be a way of expressing this with greater clarity than it has been, and perhaps also of incorporating it into part of the Bill before it is beyond amendment so that it becomes clearer than it is at present.

It now appears that we have not only to read a Command Paper but be sufficiently familiar with the details of the negotiations between the Scottish and UK Governments and no doubt adept at finding our way around the full version of the Holtham report to understand how the no-detriment principle will work. I prefer the simple statement in paragraph 5.2. If that is what the Government are about, I support them. If they could find a way of making that clear in a way that we could refer to in future to ensure that that is what will happen when people adjust grants, I would support them even more. I look to the noble and learned Lord, who has not until now dealt with these financial provisions—neither have I—to reassure the House that in the near future there is a mechanism that will allow us to do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am in a position similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in having to deal with matters that hitherto were dealt with by my noble friend in the Treasury. I fully accept that my noble friend’s amendment is a hook. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I support the general tenor of this debate in so much as it encourages the noble and learned Lord to explain the Written Ministerial Statement more fully and how we will take forward—if we are to do so—the agreement that has now emerged between the Scottish Government and the coalition Government. It would appear that that agreement has encouraged the Scottish Government to do no more, according to the Statement as I read it, than to,

“table a Legislative Consent Memorandum recommending that the Scottish Parliament votes in support of the Bill on a further Legislative Consent Motion for the Bill”.

That sentence has been somewhat extravagantly interpreted, perhaps for other purposes, by some of my noble friends and other noble Lords.

It is incumbent on us to pay appropriate respect to the Scottish Parliament, which will have to debate a Motion. No doubt some members of that Parliament may disagree with the agreement that their Government have reached. How they vote will be a reflection of the way in which that Parliament operates, which seems to copy our voting discipline substantially, from what I can see: that is, people often conform to the position adopted by their party. I was amused by the idea that a country that did not have a genuine separation between its Executive and its legislature would no longer qualify for membership of the European Union. Given that our Executive seems to be part of our legislature, if we were not already members of the European Union, we might struggle to get membership of it on that criterion.

I approach this issue in this way because I have been on record repeatedly in this Committee as being confident that the Scottish Parliament would pass a legislative consent Motion. I am confident because it has already done it and because many significant Members of the Scottish Parliament have already voted for a legislative consent Motion on most of what is before us in this Bill. To the extent that the Bill has been amended, it has been amended at their request. It therefore did not seem consistent or politically likely that that Parliament would not pass a legislative consent Motion at some stage. I have said this before and I am not saying it now in the knowledge that an agreement has been reached. I have been confident that that would happen. However, I have also said before, and I repeat, that as far as I am concerned that has never been a condition precedent for us getting on and dealing with this Bill. I have been prepared to entertain debate with noble Lords about what we need to do if there is no legislative consent Motion, although I have been confident that there would be one, and it seems that my confidence was not misplaced.

However, from my perspective of the politics of Scotland and where we are at this challenging time, it is important that we keep our word to the Scottish people and pass this Bill, which has its genesis in Calman and prior to that in the Scottish Parliament and all the devolution parties in Scotland. We should proceed to offer these additional powers to the Scottish people through their Parliament. It would then be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether to accept them, and it would not be our responsibility, and certainly not the responsibility of an unelected Chamber of this Parliament, if it did not offer them.

As far as I am concerned, it has never been a condition precedent of completing this work that we guarantee that there will be an LCM. However, it now appears that there will be one. At least to the extent that we can anticipate that the agreement that has been reached will persuade the Members of the Scottish Parliament to vote for this LCM, I think we can work on the basis that there will be one. However, we need to get more detail from the Government of what this deal that they have struck with the Scottish Parliament actually means.

I have already said this afternoon that the Government should assure the House that Parliament will be provided with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise properly what amount to significant new details on the process of the devolution of tax and borrowing powers. I do not fully understand the relevant paragraphs in the Written Ministerial Statement. We do not have much time to get to grips with them, but we will never do so if no one explains them to us. What exactly does the reference to the Holtham report mean? The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to the paragraph that states:

“The Government will work together with the Scottish Government over coming months and years to give operational effect to the powers including the block grant adjustment, in a fair and sustainable way”.

What does that mean? How will that agreement, when it is reached, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny here in our Parliament?

The next bullet point states that the Secretary of State for Scotland and Scottish Ministers will produce between them,

“annual reports to the UK and Scottish Parliaments on the progress of transferring the tax and borrowing powers to the Scottish Government”.

There must be some method of accountability envisaged in this deal that allows this Parliament to be assured that the Bill we are passing in the context of the deal that has been struck will ensure that the Government are answerable for what they are doing in relation to these issues.

I am content that we should continue with this debate provided we are given some explanation of how this process is to be carried out. I am happy to engage, time permitting, in any number of briefings outwith this Committee with Ministers, or with Members of this House more broadly, so that they can explain how this process is to operate. I would also like to be assured that Members of the other place will get the same briefing, because it is absolutely certain that they will get 15 minutes to debate all this and decide it when it gets back to them. They may all be cut off in mid-sentence as they try to tease out what this means. I therefore encourage the noble and learned Lord to come to the Dispatch Box now, or at some stage over the next few hours, and explain how this is to be done.

I have already said that I broadly welcome the other aspects of this agreement—the non-financial elements—because I do not think that they represent the hollowing out of the Bill that was suggested earlier. They are comparatively small concessions. However, as my previous contributions to this debate, and those of my noble and learned friend, have indicated, they are concessions that we were encouraging the Government to implement in another way because we thought they went beyond the Calman recommendations, which we support. Legislative consent Motion conditionality is less relevant to the Bill now than it ever was. In any event, it was never relevant to my support for it. However, we now have a much more complicated environment that has generated the possibility of that LCM. When the noble and learned Lord comes to the Dispatch Box now or at some stage within the next few hours, I urge him to explain to us the implications of that much more complex environment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth for his amendment. He obviously had great prescience in tabling it because it has been debated today when a Written Ministerial Statement has been brought forward paving the way for a legislative consent Motion. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, made clear, that is what it does—it paves the way for a legislative consent Motion, and it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine whether to pass it. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated, he would be rather surprised if the majority party in the Scottish Parliament did not take the lead from its leader.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, for more details. I have not held any direct negotiations with the First Minister on these matters. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been primarily responsible for the negotiations involving individual Scottish Ministers. The Written Ministerial Statement sets out the agreement that has been reached and we should be happy to provide further details to facilitate debate on Report. I had already indicated as much with regard to the Holtham proposals. Clearly, if other issues need to be raised, it is only right that I should facilitate that debate. As I think was acknowledged in our short debate before agreeing to go into Committee, a considerable amount of hard work was done to ensure that that agreement was concluded and, in turn, to ensure that that happened before today’s debate.

It is difficult for me to make other arrangements while I am here on the Front Bench, but I am more than willing—even at the conclusion of our discussions this evening—to meet noble Lords to arrange for briefings on paper, and perhaps to see what other briefings between Members of your Lordships’ House and relevant officials could be facilitated, so that when we come to Report or Third Reading, when there may be a bit more time, your Lordships will be properly informed and briefed.

I certainly pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that Members of the House of Commons have more than a legitimate interest in these matters, because if this House chooses to pass amendments—and the Government will be bringing forward amendments to reflect some aspects of the agreement that require changes to the Bill—they will also have to be considered in the House of Commons. I certainly want to facilitate such discussions as best I can and, if it is thought suitable—and it is not at a ridiculous hour, which I hope it will not be—I shall be more than happy to meet anyone who wishes to have a preliminary discussion at the end of our proceedings today about how those discussions might best be achieved.

It has always been the Government’s intention to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament in favour of the Scotland Bill, and it goes without saying that we are pleased that we were able to do that in terms of changes to the Scotland Bill and supporting non-legislative arrangements, and that the Scottish Government have also tabled a legislative consent Motion in support of the Bill. It includes finance and non-finance changes. I believe that these changes meet the tests that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated were important, and by which this Government have set store, for any changes to the Bill package—namely, that they are based on evidence, maintain the cross-party consensus that supports the Bill and will benefit Scotland without detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom. We have gone further than in any other Bill in working between parties in Scotland and across the United Kingdom to build on a cross-party consensus. We have carefully considered and—where appropriate and where the case has been properly made—we have taken on board the views of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. This has allowed an agreement to be reached.

My noble friend asked about the legislative consent Motion, and the position was also reflected in the contribution of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. It may be useful if I say something about legislative consent Motions in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who I am sure would be able to correct me if I got it wrong. During the passage of the Scotland Bill through your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that,

“we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament”.—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 791.]

It is a convention; it is not law. The words “not normally” are there. An example occurred earlier this Session when the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent Motion objecting to parts of the Welfare Reform Bill. The Scottish Parliament consented to some parts that were within devolved competence and rejected other parts that had implications for Scottish Ministers. The United Kingdom Government—probably one of my noble friends from this Dispatch Box—moved amendments to excise those parts from the Welfare Reform Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I have already had my say on the issue of different referendums quite extensively and there are only two aspects of our debate on these amendments that I have not expressed a view on, so I shall concentrate my remarks on them. First, I turn to the role of the Electoral Commission. A number of possible roles for the Electoral Commission are reflected in the amendments that have been proposed by noble Lords. It seems to me that the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to referendums is now settled. We had two referendums in 2011 and the Electoral Commission played a role in respect of them both which your Lordships’ House seemed well satisfied with. I have heard no criticism of its role in terms of supervision.

It played a specific role in testing what has become known as the intelligibility of any proposed referendum question in relation to both of the 2011 referendums. I understand that the commission indicated in its response to the Government’s consultation that it does not have the legal power to play that role in relation to the proposed referendum on Scottish independence and it has asked the Government to consider, as indeed have other consultees, using this Bill to give it that power so that it can get on with testing the intelligibility of the proposed questions. Of course, it could take all the questions that have been proposed in amendments and test their intelligibility on Scottish voters, focus groups and others. The commission is willing to do that job and I think that the Government should consider amending the Bill on Report to give it that power.

Otherwise, much as the proposals in the amendments before us are attractive and beguiling, I think that we should ask the Electoral Commission to play exactly the same role it has played in previous referendums, particularly the two which were conducted under legislation passed in this House and in the other place for the referendums held in 2011. There was endless debate about its role and agreement was reached before it set off on its work.

I say this for a very good reason: if we want the process that determines how the referendum will be conducted to be seen as legal, fair and decisive—and we expect now that that will be either in the context of a Section 30 order and the preparation for it, or some other option should the Section 30 order not be consented to—we have to avoid creating special processes or, dare I say, a special franchise for the election. The arguments of those who construct emotional, historical or family reasons for everyone who has an interest in the future of Scotland to be included in a franchise are very interesting. If we were to be all-inclusive we could find a way of doing so, but that would leave us open to the accusation that we are creating a special franchise in order to influence the outcome.

If the referendum is to be seen as legal, fair and decisive we should look to a pre-existing franchise, which is what the consultation did. It referred to the two pre-existing franchises in Scotland—the one for the United Kingdom Parliament and the other for the Scottish Parliament and for Scottish local government—and asked for opinions on which of the two those who responded to the consultation preferred. I am content with either of them but I veer towards the one for the Scottish Parliament. However, we can have that debate in the future when we come to look at the matter in the context of a decision, rather than in the context of a proposal, which is where we are at present.

With all due respect to my noble friend Lady Taylor, I know of the difficulties we had not only in persuading members of the Armed Forces to register but in facilitating that registration so that they could vote. I have great sympathy for people, particularly those in the Armed Forces, who are ordered to be somewhere rather than making the choice and thus being denied the franchise. We ought to look more generally at that issue to see whether we can resolve it and make it easier for members of our Armed Forces to exercise their vote. However, I resist the temptation to do that for this particular exercise for the reason I have articulated.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this group of amendments has allowed us to look at a number of the practical, important issues which arise in the context of a referendum. As I indicated earlier, it is an opportunity for your Lordships to express views on this. Although we found consensus on a number of issues in the earlier debate, clearly on the issue of franchise there have been different views, to which I shall try to respond.

On a preliminary matter which I am not quite sure related to the independence referendum, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised a question on the so-called West Lothian commission, which is to look at the implications for the House of Commons of devolution. Its formal remit is to consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The noble Lord asked about submitting evidence. I was not aware that it was not receiving evidence—I am not sure whether the noble Lord meant oral evidence or written evidence—but the commission that has been established is independent of government and I would be wary of trying to intervene. The commission should be free to undertake such work as it deems necessary to consider proposals for handling the parliamentary consequences of devolution.

A number of noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Foulkes—raised the question of timing. The United Kingdom Government’s firm view is that the question of Scotland’s constitutional status should be resolved sooner rather than later. The continuing uncertainty about Scotland’s future is damaging to Scotland and until the issue is resolved that uncertainty will remain and, I suspect, grow. In our consultation paper we asked for views on the timing of the referendum and the majority of responses were in favour of holding it sooner than the Scottish Government’s proposal to hold it in the autumn of 2014. Recently, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out a timetable for a referendum to be held in September 2013. We believe that that is a practicable timetable and see no need to delay. That view has been expressed by others. CBI Scotland said:

“The timetable should certainly provide for sufficient facts and analysis to be made available to business and the wider public and for the issues involved to be fully considered but, on balance, we believe that the referendum can and should be held sooner than currently planned”.

By “currently planned”, I think it means the preferred date of the Scottish Government. There seems to be a general consensus in your Lordships’ House on this.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Steel would ensure that any referendum on Scottish independence was administered by the Electoral Commission. A number of colleagues and noble Lords expressed their support for this and, again, I think there was widespread support for it. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas gave some practical examples of when he believed that the Electoral Commission would have been of considerable benefit. I am sure we are not calling now for a recount of the Lothian regional vote in 1999. History might have been different in so many ways if there had been a different outcome there.

The Government’s view is that it is right that the Electoral Commission should oversee the referendum. It is a well-established body, known to be credible, independent and politically impartial. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, two referendums in 2011 were overseen by the Electoral Commission without criticism. It has the experience and expertise required to oversee this referendum and can play a key role in ensuring that the referendum and its results are seen to be fair and decisive.

Previously, the Scottish Government suggested that they would create what they called a Scottish referendum commission to oversee the referendum, answerable only to the Scottish Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Steel indicated, it is not a particularly satisfactory position when one of the players nominates the referee. The United Kingdom Government believe it is unnecessary to create a new commission—undoubtedly, that would be done at additional cost—when the Electoral Commission is already in place and has demonstrated its capability. We are pleased that the Scottish Government now agree that the Electoral Commission should lead on the oversight arrangements for the referendum and we will continue to engage with the Scottish Government on this. Again, a number of responses to the consultation concurred with that.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I shall savour that apology. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his gracious apology. I shall bank it away because we may get to a point during the course of today when I will need it in order to bargain for others.

I am as interested as any Member of the House in where the discussions between the Government and the Scottish Government are in relation to the legislative consent Motion. However, I have been consistently of the opinion that the Scottish Parliament will pass a legislative consent Motion in relation to this Bill. I am also consistently of the view that we have promised the Scottish people that we will deliver the Bill in such a way that it can be enacted by a legislative consent Motion effectively and that we should keep our word to the Scottish people and to the Scottish political classes.

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

My Lords, picking up on the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, there was a commitment in the manifestos of all three parties—the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—at the last general election that we would seek to implement the Calman commission proposals, which this Bill substantially seeks to do.

On the issue of sitting days, I readily recognise the concerns. Indeed, I was told that the House would sit to debate the Scotland Bill on a Thursday and I have turned up today with my noble friend Lord Sassoon to respond to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated some of the issues that we have had to address. There was one day—Tuesday, 14 February—when, because of the time taken by the Welfare Reform Bill, we did not manage to debate anything. The decision was taken late in the day that it would not be proper to start our debates after 9.30 pm, and there was general agreement that that was the right decision. Our previous debate in Committee was on a Tuesday. Next week we will be in Committee on Wednesday.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, it was not on Second Reading but when we moved into Committee in January that the Government announced, as a result of representations they had received, quite properly, from my noble friend Lord Forsyth, that there would be a consultation. There were amendments on the Marshalled List to the effect that we would not deal with referendums until after the consultation period had closed. I indicated at the time that we would hope to deal with them in the week beginning 12 March, and today was originally identified as the date for doing so. However, as has been indicated, as we lost a day because of the ping-pong on the Welfare Reform Bill, we were not able to make as much progress on the last occasion as we had hoped. These debates will now take place next Wednesday, when there will be an opportunity to address the issues around referendums.

It is perfectly reasonable for my noble friend to ask where we have got to with the legislative consent Motion. A Motion was passed in the Scottish Parliament in March last year, which I suspect is the one that our honourable friend Mr Gauke was talking about. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, voted for it, as he was still a Member of the Scottish Parliament at the time. It is also worth pointing out that on the final vote, Mr Alex Salmond voted for it, too, as did many people who are currently members of the Scottish Government. That legislative consent Motion stands until any subsequent Motion is tabled that updates it.

The Government intend to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament in favour of the Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not aware of any other degroupings.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his amendments and for opening this debate. I also thank him for the opportunity to make a speech that will, I hope, over the hours that we will spend on debating these and related issues, be considered to be multipurpose.

I had expected—and anticipated in preparing my speaking notes—the amendments of my noble friend Lord Foulkes to have been regrouped, for maybe the second time, with those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Therefore, I wrote a note to myself to apologise to both noble Lords for giving a generic response, rather than addressing all the subtleties of the individual effects of their amendments. I do so because this is, ultimately, an issue of principle. I do not devalue all the detailed points that underpin the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put forward about the interesting debates that we could have in Scotland on the referendum and the detail of these specific taxation powers. However, whether we have a referendum on them is an issue of principle, and there are principles that we ought to apply. I will deal with that. I am sure that we will then get to the detail through the revised groupings, or re-revised groupings, of amendments that I have in front of me. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has indicated that the details are exercising him.

My second point is one that I have made before. I deeply regret that timetabling prevented the other place dealing with the detail of these very important issues. The last time that we convened this Committee, we had a very interesting debate on Clause 28— probably for the first time anywhere in the United Kingdom, unfortunately. It is a matter of deep regret that our elected representatives in this Parliament were denied the opportunity for debate by timetabling, thereby denying us a quarry of their position that we could mine to inform our debate. Therefore, when we draw on what we believe is the will of the Scottish people, as expressed by their elected representatives, we draw on information that unfortunately cannot be in the public domain, such as conversations and observations. Some of us have expertise that we have built up over time from watching what is happening in Scotland and knowing, from the conduct of politicians, what the people they represent are telling them. That is deeply unfortunate but it is where we are. There is a bigger issue at stake in the politics of Scotland, but I will come to that strongly later in the debate. We should keep our eye on the prize, which at this time is the union of the United Kingdom. There is a political imperative at the moment that should dominate everything that we do. I regret that we are sometimes forced into undermining that by the way in which this has been handled, which has been deeply inefficient.

I turn to the principle of referendum. I do not believe that there is any constitutional imperative to hold a referendum on the devolution of financial powers to Scotland, as provided for by Part 3 of the Bill, for the following reasons. First, the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Constitution in its 2010 report, Referendums in the United Kingdom, was:

“We do not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘fundamental constitutional issue’”.

It is a fascinating publication for the reasons that I am about to explain to your Lordships’ House. The committee did not look specifically at the example of the devolution of financial powers, although it could have because it was in the air. Therefore, noble Lords are entitled to look beyond such a conclusion to test whether what has been described by government Ministers as the largest transfer of financial power from London since the creation of the United Kingdom would be a likely candidate for a referendum.

In looking beyond the committee’s conclusions, we should look at the evidence that was heard, which is deeply instructive. If noble Lords will excuse me, I will go into this in some detail because it is interesting. Before I rehearse some of the evidence, I am prepared to concede that people who listen to this debate may think, on the basis of the expert testimony to the committee, that there is a legitimate view that that evidence tends towards the view that the devolution of financial powers would commonly be considered a candidate for referendum, given that the definitions posited included the following. I will share a number of them with noble Lords.

In giving evidence, Professor Gallagher referred to,

“fundamental questions concerning sovereignty or a major constitutional settlement, especially if they concern steps that would be completely or virtually irreversible once enacted”.

The Institute of Welsh Affairs, in its evidence on page 126, referred to,

“truly major issues of democratic principle—change that alters fundamentally the nature of the state”.

Caroline Morris, who is an expert, gave two definitions:

“Topics ... which directly affect the constitutional make-up and powers of a state”,

and,

“changes to the sovereign powers of a state”.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy of the Shaws gave the following definition:

“Anything that changed the power balances within our democratic system ... anything that in any way redistributed power in a significant sense”.

Professor Bogdanor cited:

“Legislative proposals which provide for a radical alteration in the machinery by which the laws are made”.

Professor Saward referred to,

“significant, encompassing and lasting change in the formal and general rules and rights which locate political authority”.

Professor Graham Smith mentioned,

“anything that changes the dynamic and the relationship between the people and those who are elected”.

All these definitions, which are not mutually consistent, could support the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. However, they must all be considered against the backdrop of historic precedent. As the Constitution Committee noted in its analysis, no definition of principle can be extracted from historic precedent.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I shall explain. The BBC Trust is constituted in a very different way and using the expression “the BBC trustee for Scotland” makes sense in that context. The amendment would not affect the appointments process—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland for giving way. When I came into the Chamber of your Lordships’ House today, the Advocate-General for Scotland was answering a Question about Wales.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because I have been asked to answer to your Lordships' House on matters relating to the Wales Office, as indeed I am asked to answer on matters relating to the Scotland Office, although I am not a Scotland Office Minister, and on matters relating to the Attorney-General’s Office as well. It would be unfortunate if it were suggested that the Crown Estate commissioner for Scotland was only for Scotland and did not have responsibilities. To answer the noble Lord’s point, I do not exercise any functions as Advocate-General for England because it does not have an Advocate-General.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the shoring up. The very fact that we have had this debate on the wording suggests that if we had proposed something else, I can imagine that he would have been one of those saying, “Of course, you mean that this person can make a contribution only in respect of Scotland and that is not acceptable as that person needs to have a wider remit”. As I indicated to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, her suggestion is worthy of further consideration and I shall consider it. If it answers the key point, which is that the person should have knowledge of Scotland and should not be restricted in terms of their qualifications—the broad totality of what is required for the board should be a factor in that person’s appointment, but the person might also have a special responsibility for Scotland or particular interests there—then that might well address the need without being unduly restrictive or indeed giving a misleading description of what that person’s role would be. I thank the noble Lady for that suggestion, to which I will most certainly give consideration.

Because of that wider responsibility, it is important that the appointment of all commissioners should be made by the sponsoring Minister, in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I reassure noble Lords that he will make a recommendation for the appointment of this particular commissioner only after consulting Scottish Ministers and listening carefully to what they say. That appropriately balances the need for both a Scottish interest and a UK-wide perspective on the appointment process.

There is particular concern over why there has been a different process for that appointment from that for the Scottish member of the BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has a different constitution from the Crown Estate. Under its charter, the BBC has obligations to broadcast to all parts of the United Kingdom and to have a member of its trust for each of the nations that make up the United Kingdom. That is very distinct from the position of the Crown Estate, which has no such requirements. Indeed, as I indicated a moment ago, it does not even have to have a presence in any particular part of the United Kingdom.

The appointment of all Crown Estate commissioners is by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Chancellor, reflecting the UK-wide responsibility of every commissioner. The UK Government will still need to discuss the Scottish appointments of both organisations with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the best people to represent Scottish interests are appointed.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about the status of the Crown Estate in the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s intention to consider the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee alongside the request that was made by the Scottish Government for further powers in relation to the Crown Estate. The Government believe that the Crown Estate operating on a UK-wide basis offers the best value across the whole of the United Kingdom, but we recognise the role that the Crown Estate plays in local communities and wish to work with it to ensure that it operates most effectively with them.

Particular to that is the coastal communities fund, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced the establishment of that fund, which will be financed by the Government through the allocation of funding equivalent to 50 per cent of the revenue from the Crown Estate’s marine activities. It is linked to revenue that is raised by the Crown Estate’s marine activities each year and the funding will be available on a bid basis. The Government will welcome bids from charities, businesses, social enterprises and local organisations. In that way, we can build a stronger link between the activities of the Crown Estate, particularly in coastal communities, including those that are affected by such activities. It is a very positive step, which recognises the role of the Crown Estate.

I have indicated that I will certainly give further consideration to nomenclature and thank the noble Lady for her helpful suggestion. However, I have also indicated that there is a distinction between the constitution of the Crown Estate on the one hand and that of the BBC Trust on another. The latter has a specific requirement to serve specific parts of the United Kingdom, which is why not only the nomenclature but the mode of appointment is different. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what proved to be a much more interesting debate than I expected. I made clear in my introductory remarks that these are probing amendments, which implied that I had no intention of dividing the House. Having listened to the argument, I am severely tempted to do so because it may turn out to be the high point of my career in the House of Lords but I will resist the temptation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who immediately got the point that underpinned the argument about nomenclature. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I always thought that the adjective qualified the “Crown Estate” commissioner, rather than “Crown”, which is exactly what led to the confusion that has been apparent in the debate. I have to say that I am far from totally persuaded that,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”,

bears the narrow interpretation or function that the noble and learned Lord has attributed to it. Try as I might to apply that argument consistently to many other titles, at least one of which I have held as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, it did not seem to me to stand the test of that destructive analysis.

However, I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord has, on behalf of the Government, indicated that he is prepared to take away the issue of nomenclature and think about it. There needs to be clarity of language in the politics of Scotland. We may sometimes misinterpret and play with words for the purposes of debate but people in Scotland use these words very carefully. I have learnt in my political career that where there are strong divisions of opinion—for example, in Northern Ireland—vocabulary and phraseology matter to people and are used in particular ways. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to take this issue away.

I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord’s explanation of the reason for the different phraseology as regards the process of identification, selection and appointment. I was not aware of that difference and had not uncovered it in my researches. I am grateful to all noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for tabling an amendment, the style of which may have been influenced by one of my colleagues. That was helpful as it gave the noble and learned Lord the opportunity to put on the record information about the appointments process which will benefit that process and the openness of government. This has been a worthwhile debate. As usual with this Bill, issues which are apparently comparatively straightforward turn out to be interesting and educational. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I speak only because of my support for a previous amendment that was withdrawn, and I shall explain that position. As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, explained, the effect of the amendment is to impose upon the Home Secretary an obligation to consult,

“with such persons as he or she considers appropriate”—

I suppose in this case it is “she”—when making regulations under Section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act but, peculiarly, only when such regulations apply to Scotland.

At first, I was attracted to the idea of a statutory requirement to consult. I was so attracted that I and my noble and learned friend sought to move a complementary amendment imposing a similar obligation on Scottish Ministers in the exercise of the new powers relating to licensing that they will enjoy when the Bill in enacted. However, after more detailed research, I have come to the conclusion that the imposition of such an obligation is not necessary in either case, which is why I have withdrawn from the Marshalled List the amendment that stood in my name and that of my noble friends.

I will not detain the House further, but the reason for that is because my research has revealed an extensive commitment to consultation by the UK and Scottish Governments and the Scottish Parliament that it would appear has been rigorously observed over a long period. As noble Lords would probably agree, whether voluntarily or by practice that does not require regulation or legislation, good practice can be developed and it is best left that way. That is my view but I shall leave the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to explain the detail.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Clause 23 gives Scottish Ministers the power to license Scottish doctors to prescribe three controlled drugs—cocaine, diamorphine and dipipanone—for the treatment of addiction. The Calman commission recommended that responsibility for the licensing of controlled substances used in the treatment of addiction should be devolved to Scottish Ministers as part of their responsibility for health and well-being. The UK Government consider that Scottish Ministers are best placed to consider the particular circumstances in Scotland when deciding which doctors should have the authority to prescribe or administer the three controlled drugs used in the treatment of addiction. That relatively narrow devolution is set out in Clause 23.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his interest in this clause. As I have indicated, the Government certainly want to ensure that the Scottish Government have the necessary powers and abilities to tackle drug misuse effectively. That is why we have introduced Clause 23. However, it is perhaps important to indicate that while Scottish Ministers can consider the particular circumstances in Scotland when deciding which doctors based in Scotland should assume the responsibility to prescribe or administer specific drugs, they do so pursuant to regulations made under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary.

My noble friend’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate persons before such regulations were made. The power to make regulations and the responsibility for the form of those regulations is reserved to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is already required by statute to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before making regulations made under the 1971 Act. As a matter of good practice, the Secretary of State will consult key partners, and often the public, before implementing changes to regulations made under the 1971 Act. The Home Office has recently completed a three-month public consultation on proposed changes to, and the consolidation of, the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. I am afraid that I cannot tell my noble friend Lord Maclennan whether NICE was consulted but, as I can ascertain, that would seem to be one of the bodies that might have been consulted. In the context of the consultation, officials from the department met their counterparts from the Scottish Government to discuss the proposals.

The Bill is devolving the licensing function to Scottish Ministers, and they will consult whoever they think appropriate while exercising that function to license doctors in Scotland. The making of the regulations remains reserved to the United Kingdom and the Home Secretary and I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. I am sure that this point will have been noted by others, not just in the UK Government but by Ministers in the Scottish Government.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Sorry, I meant my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Maybe I should start again.

The reason I do not support the amendment is not that it gives us an opportunity, as my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke has indicated, to celebrate devolution—I intend to do a bit of that myself—nor that it created the opportunity for what I thought was an excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Maxton on the reasons for devolution and why we should support it in principle. But over the course of this Parliament, I have been surprised by the ability of people to make the most detailed and engaging speeches about the concept that has become known as localism while at the same time resisting devolution. I do not really understand how people can hold those two concepts together in their head, as localism is just a form of devolution. As my noble friend Lord Maxton has suggested, we ought to start looking at the powers that we as politicians in government of any description exercise over people. We should look at the appropriate level to exercise them that is relevant to people. Given the experience that the political classes have had in the United Kingdom over the past few years of the deterioration of their relationship with the people they govern and legislate for, getting their relationship with the people of the country back would be very helpful.

I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I do not have anything like the history that some of my noble friends and other Members of this House have, but I have been committed to it for the whole of the shorter political life that I have had, and I was committed to it in my membership of the Labour Party before I had a public life in politics. At some stage in this debate we need to move away from arguments about what other people are doing or personalities—I include the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in this; he ought not to be the manifestation of a particular type of politics that we define ourselves against, any more than we should be obsessed by what other people are doing—to a collective narrative for devolution and for the union that describes the sort of United Kingdom that we want for the young people of today in Scotland and their future. That will be, as the people of Scotland demand, a Scotland in which there is significant devolved power, exercised by a Parliament that they elect independently of the United Kingdom Parliament.

We have to recognise that whether we have conditioned people into that expectation because of their dissatisfaction with the previous settlement and the sense of disfranchisement that there was between the people who governed them and the exercise of their votes, whether we have conditioned them into it by their expectations of devolution, or whether they have just been conditioned into it by their espousal in significant numbers of the concept of nationalism, it does not really matter what the motivation is—that is where the people of Scotland are. The sooner we get a collective narrative that describes the sort of Scotland that we want our children or our children’s children to live in, and what powers the people who govern them will have, how they will be able to use them and how they will be accountable, the more chance that we have of preserving the union. I passionately believe that the best way of describing that is in the context of the union.

I come to the issue of the use of the word “devolved”. The people of Scotland do not actually need that word attached to anything. They understand that their Parliament is a devolved Parliament and the Scottish Government are a devolved Government. Whether or not the people who happen to have charge of that Government or that executive power for a particular period have other ambitions and behave in a particular way, as they do, that is designed to give some alternative impression, the people of Scotland are not fooled. The people of Scotland want an Executive who address the issues that Scotland faces, which are manifest to anyone who lives there. We have problems in relation to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, health, the abuse of alcohol, sectarianism and a lot of issues that have their roots in decisions made by previous generations, such as the movement of people, the death of economic drivers, changes in economic circumstances and the movement of jobs from these islands. There is a whole series of things, over many of which we have not had any real control.

Of course, the people of Scotland do not want a First Minister who is more interested in consorting with people who give the impression that he is somehow much more important than he is. They do not want that and they see through it. We do not need to spend much time describing all that. However, they definitely want politicians who can address the issues and challenges of their everyday lives. They want people to explain to them why these issues are best addressed in the context of the United Kingdom, wider Europe and the world. They understand that.

Traditionally, Scots knew and understood their position in the world. That is why, while there are approximately 5 million people in Scotland who claim to be Scots, there are in excess of 40 million people around the world who claim Scots heritage in one way or another. We are a nation of people who have an understanding and concept of our place in the world. I honestly do not think that we need to spend any more time in this Committee or on the Bill debating these issues. We need to start describing the future of Scotland in the context of devolution and celebrate what we have already achieved by being a template for genuine localism in the United Kingdom.

It has not been perfect. We have a very young Parliament in which people are growing up. Members of the Scottish Parliament who were not politicians at all when we devolved powers to it are becoming significant politicians in the United Kingdom. I simply do not support my noble friend’s interesting amendment, which has led to a short but interesting debate, because the last thing that the people of Scotland need is for their politicians to spend another few hundred thousand pounds on changing the name of their Government.

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

My Lords, can I perhaps be somewhat boring and brief at this time of night by focusing on the amendment? It would insert the word “Devolved” into Clause 30, Clause 37 and Schedule 4, where the reference would become to the devolved Scottish Government. Clause 15 changes the formal name to the Scottish Government from the Scottish Executive. It was felt that the Executive were increasingly widely known as the Scottish Government and that it made sense to amend the Act to reflect public perception and to avoid confusion. However, the fact that the Scotland Act refers to “Scottish Executive” prevents the use of “Scottish Government” in legislation, contracts and other legal matters. Therefore, Clause 15 is designed to prevent inconsistencies in what the Scottish Executive are called by the public and in the legal name.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wishes to insert “devolved” in front of “Scottish Government”. That is unnecessary and may even lead to further confusion. Altering the name of the Scottish Government to “the devolved Scottish Government” would in no way strengthen the position of devolution. Indeed, it is important to note that no such prefix attaches to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. It would look very odd and lopsided if it happened just in Scotland.

That said, this has been a useful debate on devolution. I will not go into all the highways and byways but some important points were made. Some of us who very much support what has happened over the past 12 years sometimes miss a trick because so often, ahead of the debates in 1997 and the referendum leading up to that, we talked about devolution in terms of the Scottish Parliament dealing with matters related to the domestic agenda of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom Parliament being responsible for macroeconomic policies, defence, foreign policy, social security and pensions. Although we will undoubtedly debate where the boundaries should be—the Bill seeks to address some of these issues—I nevertheless believe that the idea of a Scottish Parliament within a United Kingdom still commands the support of the vast majority of the people in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Monday 6th February 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the draft order was laid before your Lordships’ House on 10 January 2012. In asking your Lordships to agree that it should be considered, I shall provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve.

The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010, which I shall refer to as the 2010 Act. The Lords Merits Committee has reviewed this order and has not noted it as being of special interest.

The 2010 Act made provision for the regulation of social housing in Scotland, including the establishment of the Scottish Housing Regulator. The 2010 Act repeals Scottish Ministers’ regulation and inspection functions under Part 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. In their place, it establishes the Scottish Housing Regulator as an independent body with the objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless, of tenants of social landlords, and of recipients of services provided by social landlords. The Scottish Housing Regulator will operate within a set of priorities agreed with Scottish Ministers but will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the efficient use of public resources.

The order will make the Scottish Housing Regulator a part of the Scottish Administration. An important effect of this arrangement is that staff of the agency who presently discharge functions on behalf of Scottish Ministers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and are currently civil servants will transfer to the Scottish Housing Regulator and continue to be civil servants. The order will ensure that UK legislation is updated to reflect the changes made in the 2010 Act, and will ensure that UK legislation can continue to operate where it interacts with the new devolved legislation. It will also ensure that the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 does not apply to the Scottish Housing Regulator, with the effect that the Lord Advocate cannot be sued in the place of the Scottish Housing Regulator.

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 this order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act to achieve a practical outcome. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his words of introduction. I should say at the outset that I have no issue of principle with, or any objection to, the order before the Committee. I shall take only a few minutes of the Committee’s time to make some points of context and to raise one point for clarification.

As the noble and learned Lord and indeed the Explanatory Memorandum make clear, the order is consequential on the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010—unusually, I suppose, for an Act of the Scottish Parliament, which among other things makes provision about the regulation of social housing in Scotland. It is unusual to the extent that it is not normal for regulations to be made here in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament when there are provisions, as the Minister has pointed out, to ensure that where necessary consequential provisions require Acts of this Parliament they will be carried out in the context of the Scotland Act 1998.

In turn, the 2010 Act is just the legislative leg of a journey that started back in October 2007 with the publication of Firm Foundations, the discussion document on the future of housing in Scotland that set out the new SNP Scottish Executive’s proposals for reform and their policy ambitions for Scotland. The SNP entered government with an ambition to increase the rate of new supply of housing in Scotland to 35,000 units per year from the 25,000 per year that they inherited from the previous Scottish Executive, and they had an election pledge to build 6,000 socially rented houses for each year in government. However, they are far from realising their primary target; indeed, today the website of Shelter Scotland, drawing on the Scottish Government’s own statistics, shows that in 2010-11 just over 16,000 new homes were built in Scotland, which, as anyone who knows basic arithmetic will see, is 9,000 per year fewer than what they inherited. As a result of the SNP’s cuts to the affordable housing budget, the social sector will fall by 30 per cent this year, which will choke off growth in social housing. At the same time, the SNP has rejected Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth in Scotland that would use the revenue generated from the bank bonus levy to create jobs and fund the construction of 2,500 affordable homes in Scotland. Instead, the nationalists have slashed new build approvals to an unprecedented low and seem to have scrapped their manifesto promise and previous targets.

My second general point is that, to the extent that the order reinstates the independent regulation of social housing in Scotland, we support it. However, the real disappointment of the 2010 Act is the missed opportunity to improve the regulation of the private rental sector in Scotland. A strong and responsible private rental sector is vital to delivering affordable housing, and we are committed to rooting out rogue landlords and placing stronger duties on all landlords to maintain standards in the properties that they rent. Those who have represented constituents in Scotland will know that the conduct of these landlords is the bane of many communities there.

I make all these points because, despite the fact that a whole chapter of Firm Foundations was devoted to the rented sector, since then the SNP Government have focused on restricting the right to buy and restructuring the administrative arrangements, of which the set of regulations before the Committee are but a part. They have avoided completely the problems that arise from the private rental sector in every single community in Scotland, and have substantially failed to address the fundamental problem of the crisis in social housing in Scotland.

Despite all that, the changes that the order makes are uncontroversial from the perspective of these Benches. Primarily the changes ensure that civil servants who at present perform the regulatory functions of the existing Scottish Housing Regulator as an agency of the Scottish Executive continue to hold the status of civil servant when they transfer to the new Scottish Housing Regulator, which will be a body corporate. As the Minister has said, this is done by making the new Scottish Housing Regulator a part of the Scottish Administration.

As your Lordships will realise by now, the serious questions that I have in relation to this whole policy are not properly addressed to the Minister at all; rather, they are addressed to the Scottish Executive. As there is an opportunity to put them on the record, though, I could not resist it. I have one relatively simple question for him regarding the second part of the regulations. Article 3 relates to the application of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857. As I understand it, as this is a body corporate—an independent body, part of the Scottish Administration but not part of the Executive—if one has to sue it, one will not have the benefit of being able to sue the Lord Advocate. In other words, one will not have the option of suing the Government for any action that one has against them.

I should just like the noble and learned Lord to take the time to ensure that those who may at some stage have to read this record are clear that it is the Government’s expectation that that body will have sufficient resources to meet any liabilities generated in relation to anybody who has cause to sue it. It may not be an issue that he is able to address directly without some form of inspiration, so I should be happy for him to write to me about it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his response and for generally welcoming the principle that underlies the order. As he indicated, it has three functions. One is to ensure that the Scottish Housing Regulator becomes part of the Scottish Administration. That is something that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative competence to do—hence the need for this order. Again, the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to change UK legislation beyond the devolved competence, and an order such as this allows that to happen. We will come back to the point about the disapplication of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857.

The noble Lord said that he thought it was somewhat unusual for us to be here discussing secondary legislation that is essentially an Act of the Scottish Parliament. I understand that since 2000 there have been 51 orders under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Indeed, I think that since I took office I have brought to a Committee orders under Section 104 on at least three or four occasions. In spite of some of the furore and some of the headlines that one sees about relationships between the Westminster and Holyrood Governments, there is in fact considerable co-operation between the two Governments over a large area of work. There is certainly also a willingness to give the legislation of the Scottish Parliament full effect in areas which it has not been able to tackle as they have been beyond its legislative competence. In such cases, through co-operation and negotiation it is possible to bring forward orders such as this to give effect to the intention of the Scottish Parliament.

The noble Lord clearly raised matters of policy. Tempted though one may be to follow him down that path, although I have many responsibilities, one is not to answer on behalf of the Scottish Government, for which mercy I should probably be very grateful. However, he has taken the opportunity to highlight important housing policy issues relating to building to meet housing need and the importance of ensuring that the private rented sector is well regulated. From his former experience as a constituency Member, he has obviously identified many cases where proper regulation is needed.

It is also fair to point out that when the consultation took place on the Firm Foundations document there was overwhelming support from the stakeholders who responded that there should be a high degree of support for the principle of independent regulation, which of course is what is sought to be done by the establishment of the Scottish Housing Regulator.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, also asked a specific question about the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857. As he indicated, as a result of the body becoming a body corporate, it was deemed more appropriate that legal action should be taken against the body itself and not against the Lord Advocate. He asked what would happen. I am more than willing to write to the noble Lord with a fuller answer but the short answer is that the public purse would pick up the costs if, for example, there was a judicial review. Clearly, that would be a matter for budget negotiations. It would be a question of whether the Scottish Housing Regulator had the resources for that and whether the budget would have to be adapted in other ways. However, I shall certainly give greater clarification to the noble Lord on that point. I think that only if the board acted well beyond its competence or unreasonably would the costs would fall upon it, but I shall seek to clarify that point.

I hope that I have responded to the noble Lord’s points and I therefore ask the Committee to agree that it has considered this order.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am pleased to have been able to give the noble Lord another opportunity to be helpful to the Committee, and at this point I will conclude my remarks.

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

My Lords, the Committee owes a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth for introducing this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, there can be no doubt as to the mood of the Committee on this issue, and views were expressed with great passion and sincerity. I think that I have some common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but I want to read his remarks carefully. I accept the sympathy that he offered me.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said in moving the amendment, we have to be conscious of the sensitivities of relationships between the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the respective Governments of the United Kingdom. He said that we ought not to appear to be imposing something on the Scottish Parliament, albeit that is what the impact of the amendments would be.

I am in a slightly more difficult position for a number of reasons, not least because it would not be appropriate for me as a member of the UK Government to express an opinion about policies of the Scottish Government. Others have had the freedom to do that, which I could perhaps envy, but it would not be appropriate for me to do so other than to make some more general points.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that the debate should not be about the principle of tuition fees; on the other hand, it leads to a question of choices. A choice was made back in 1999-2000 by the Scottish Parliament not to charge tuition fees for domiciled Scottish students, whereas a choice was made by the Westminster Parliament under the previous Administration and continued by the present Administration that there would be tuition fee charging. The problem, which has given rise to such passion, would not have arisen at all if the United Kingdom Parliament had made a different choice.

Likewise, if I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the Scottish Government had a choice as to whether they should fund universities in the way in which they have done, with the fee structure that they are proposing, or to make more money available to the funding council, as did the Administration which I was proud to serve back in 2004. Then, we made the deliberate choice, from among all the priorities competing for government funding, to give additional funds to the further and higher education sectors in Scotland. That in some respects is what devolution is about: allowing the Scottish Government to make these choices. A part of what this Bill is about is making sure that there is greater accountability for the way in which money is raised. That is the background against which we should look at these issues.

Two strong issues emerged in the debate: one was the £9,000 fees for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the other, perhaps drawn out more in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, related to the fact that European Union students do not pay fees if they study in Scotland. I fully recognise why the latter is seen as being very unfair to students in the rest of the United Kingdom. I make no bones about the fact that it is a result of European Union law, which, if it was to be changed, would require action far beyond this House.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, quoted other parts of the report, which said that, notwithstanding that, there would be cases where devolution would be appropriate. Indeed, the commission identified particularly Scottish circumstances as to why air weapons should be devolved. That was the commission’s recommendation, which not only the present Government accept and are trying to implement through the Bill; the previous Government also agreed to the principle of devolving the power to regulate air weapons to the Scottish Parliament in the White Paper that they published in response to the Calman commission.

I am trying to make the point that some categories of air weapons are currently subject to a licensing regime because of their power. We still seek to maintain that reservation for that category, subject to the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 53 of the Firearms Act.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who, in one simple question, encapsulated what it probably took me seven minutes to say. The purpose of this devolution is to respond to an obvious desire in Scotland for the greater regulation of air weapons generally. Regulating them more means licensing, at the very minimum. It is inconceivable that if the Scottish Parliament is given this power, it will not make all air weapons subject to a licensing regime. The distinction, therefore, between an air weapon of lesser capacity, force or power not being regulated and one of more power being regulated disappears. There will be two licensing regimes for air weapons when, in my submission, there should be one. If there is to be a distinction between, or a subdivision in, the licensing regimes for air weapons—one at the UK level and one at the Scottish level—will that not just add to the confusion rather than making matters simpler?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I see the point that the noble Lord is making but I do not necessarily follow him down that route. For a start, this is the devolution of a power. It is a prescription as to how that power might or should be used and, even if it is a licensing scheme, it may well be very different. We seem to be getting weapons that are not subject to the kind of strict licensing regime that we have at the moment. Therefore, I think that a distinction can be made, which we wish to keep, for weapons of greater power so that we can maintain consistency across the United Kingdom. As I have already quoted from Calman—it might even be the passage that the noble Lord read out—there seem to be advantages in maintaining that consistency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I approach the Dispatch Box to probe again the distinctions between what Calman recommended and what the Government have chosen to do. On this occasion, the Government have gone beyond the Calman recommendations.

Clause 12 has the backing of respected bodies, such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. During the many evidence sessions throughout the Calman process, it became clear that the insolvency profession in Scotland sought the harmonisation of insolvency law on both sides of the border. However, Clause 12 goes beyond the original Calman recommendations. Your Lordships will recall that Calman recommended that the UK Insolvency Service be responsible for laying down the rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border.

Calman went on to recommend that this could be achieved by UK legislation to which the Scottish Parliament would consent by a legislative consent Motion under the Sewel convention—I think those are the exact words of the recommendation. I understand that technically—a word I do not like to use—this is exactly what the Government have done in the sense that this Bill is UK legislation that has to be consented to by a legislative consent Motion by the Scottish Parliament. However, that appears to be a pedantic argument, and I do not expect that the noble and learned Lord will resort to it.

The clause does not appear to be in keeping with the spirit of the original Calman recommendations. Does the Minister believe that this is the correct implementation of Calman, or does he agree that it goes beyond Calman? It goes beyond the reservation of the power for the Insolvency Service to lay down the rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border and reserves the whole body of law on corporate insolvency. If the Minister agrees that this goes beyond the Calman recommendation, will he outline the reasons for so doing?

The report of the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which was overwhelmingly approved by the earlier legislative consent Motion of the Scottish Parliament—as I have said before, it was supported by Alex Salmond—approved Clause 12, subject to provisions being drafted that will secure capacity for devolved legislation to effect the winding-up of registered social landlords. Does the Minister believe that this condition has been satisfactorily met? If so, can he explain why that is the case; and, if not, can he justify to this House why he has decided to pursue an alternative path to that sought by the Scotland Bill Committee?

During the debate on this clause in the other place, the Scottish nationalists asserted that there were concerns about the process of amending existing provisions on winding up registered social landlords. One concern is that future amendments, they say, would be easier to come by if this policy area were devolved rather than reserved. As is often the case with Scottish nationalists, this was asserted as though it were fact, and, as is also often the case with them, the assertion was not backed up by any evidence to suggest that that would be the case. No examples were given to support this theory, for that is all it is. It appears simply to be a continuation of their argument that everything would be better if it were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Minister in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, argued that this is not a cause for real concern, and I support that position.

However, the Minister went on to say that there was a problem and that there were ongoing discussions between the Insolvency Service and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations to discuss the latter’s specific concerns about this clause. Perhaps the Minister will update the House on the progress, or better still the outcome, of those discussions to satisfy us that the issue has been resolved. I am certainly not the only Member of this House to have received a briefing note from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that articulated continuing concern about the impact of this clause. I would not like to think that this is a sign that discussions were not successful, but if they were not successful, the Minister should explain to the Committee what is going on.

There is an identified issue here about circumstances that may arise in the winding-up or potential insolvency of a particular vehicle for delivering important housing in Scotland or a housing association. It is recognised that this needs to be resolved by discussion or perhaps by a change in regulation. Before we agree to this clause standing part of the Bill as drafted, your Lordships' House is entitled to know whether that issue has been addressed and satisfactorily resolved, or at least to have the confidence that a resolution is on its way.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for giving us an opportunity to look at this clause. Schedule 2 is also relevant to insolvency. As he indicated, there was a recommendation from the Calman commission that the UK Insolvency Service should be made responsible for laying down rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border. The noble Lord asked a very pertinent question about why the Bill goes beyond the specific terms of the Calman commission’s recommendation.

The commission was persuaded by evidence from stakeholders, such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, that a consistent approach to winding up would bring significant benefits to creditors, companies, insolvency practitioners and others dealing with insolvent companies in both England and Wales and Scotland. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland said:

“We do not see any advantage in encouraging divergence of practice when businesses across the UK operate in a similar environment”,

and,

“This will promote a more stable environment for corporate recovery and turnaround and be more comprehensible for creditors and potential investors”

Certainly in the present environment, that is an important consideration. Many winding-ups involve groups of companies that operate on both sides of the border. We believe that it will be more efficient in time and money if the same winding-up rules, other than where Scottish common law requires something else, are applied to each insolvent company in the group.

These amendments will make reorganisations more efficient and increase returns to creditors and shareholders. Group reorganisations may involve subsidiaries being wound up, and a common approach to winding-up rules should help to reduce the cost and complexity of group restructurings whose constituent companies operate both in Scotland and in England and Wales.

Indeed, in its evidence to the Calman commission, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which regulates most of the insolvency office-holders working in Scotland, highlighted the benefit of consistent rules in promoting a more stable environment for corporate recovery and turnaround. Further, the Law Society of Scotland reported in its evidence to the commission that, because of the increased number of insolvencies of groups of companies, practitioners have for a number of years been having difficulties where parts of the group are subject to the rules for England and Wales and parts to the Scottish rules. The Calman commission was persuaded that there should be a consistent approach to winding-up rules, and the UK Government agree with that position.

The commission recognised that its first option for implementing its recommendation that the UK Insolvency Service, with appropriate input from the relevant departments of the Scottish Government, should be made responsible for laying down insolvency rules for England and Wales and Scotland might not be achievable for technical reasons. It therefore acknowledged that the devolution settlement might need to be amended to secure the desired effect.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, my Lords, that would not be possible, as eligibility matters will remain reserved. I hope that on the basis of what I have indicated—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. From the way in which his voice changed, I had the sense that he was moving towards a peroration.

I am beginning more clearly to understand this division. I understand the difference between the framework within which the elections are conducted, as opposed to the administration; and I understand the difference that I imposed on this debate between the electoral system and conduct. I should be grateful if the Minister would go through the list that I gave—at some stage, if not now. Perhaps he may write to tell me where at least two of those matters lie. One of them may be straightforward and we will come to an amendment on it shortly, one hopes—the procedure and framework for filling regional MSP vacancies—but where does the abandonment of a constituency poll or notice of it to be countermanded lie? Those two matters concern me and I will ignore the other two. I should just like a reassurance that beyond the list that I gave there are no matters other than those the noble and learned Lord has identified.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will certainly write to confirm, but I can seek to indicate that the rules regarding the regional list will remain reserved to the Secretary of State. On the abandonment of a poll, my understanding is that the issue in question is not so much with the abandonment of the poll itself but where that leads to a difference in the calculation of the regional vote. It is that calculation that would be affected if there was an abandonment of a poll in a particular constituency. I am seeing nods that I have actually got it right. That is the substance of this reservation. I will confirm that, but I hope that that has been a sufficient explanation to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and learned Lord is right. We cannot speculate on what happens in an Administration of whom we are not members, but I can confirm what my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord said about the Administration of whom the three of us were members. The procedures and proceedings in these matters were as they have described.

To return to Clause 7, the limited reference procedure that we are seeking would therefore allow the law officers to refer to the Supreme Court only the provisions with which they have competency concerns, while, as I said, allowing the rest to go forward to Royal Assent. We believe that this is an appropriate and sensible method of helping to ensure that the work of the Scottish Parliament runs as smoothly as possible.

On the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Selkirk to Clause 7, through our engagement with the Law Society of Scotland the Government have, as my noble friend indicated, tabled amendments that reflect the intention behind his amendments. I wish to thank my noble friend for looking at this clause closely and for tabling his amendments. The government amendments have the same effect; I am advised that parliamentary counsel think that they have a more appropriate form of wording, but the effect is exactly the same. We therefore very much support the amendments that he has tabled, and I hope he will withdraw his amendment in respect of the other amendments that have been tabled.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the Minister. He will understand why I seek to intervene at this stage. I think it would be appropriate to point out that in the House of Commons Tom Greatrex moved a very similar amendment that was rejected, or at least not supported, by the Government at that time. The gratitude of the House to those who have created this resolution to the problem needs to be shared by him as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I know my limitations and that I will be unable to match the gratitude of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, but I will do my best. That is all I have to offer him. I thank him for bringing forward this amendment. I believe that he has made the case for a review of the electoral system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament. He made it by reminding us of the promise that the system would be kept under review; of the acceptance of the recommendations made in the Arbuthnott commission report in 2006; and, if I remember correctly, of the acceptance then that it would be appropriate to have a review of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament following the May 2011 elections—which recommendation I recollect was accepted by Douglas Alexander, the then Secretary of State for Scotland. That acceptance may not have transferred to the new coalition Government and the present Secretary of State, but I suspect that if he reread Arbuthnott, he would come to the same conclusion in relation to that review as did Douglas Alexander.

For that reason, I accept that there is a case for a review. I was interested in the intervention made on my noble friend Lady Liddell by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, who indicated that he had some reason to believe that the current leadership of the SNP in Scotland had welcomed the review and might be inclining towards the views of my noble friend Lord Foulkes about what system should replace the present one.

My noble friend expressed some surprise at that, but I am not surprised, because the SNP now has the constituencies. There is a tendency for a party’s view of the electoral system to reflect either its wish to hold on to the status quo or its desire to disturb it. That is exactly why my noble friend is right to suggest that the review needs to be carried out independently of politicians, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is right to support him.

Perhaps part of the problem with the present system was that it was a compromise agreement between political parties which had an objective to disturb the status quo. My own experience is that some of the concerns about the electoral system that is used for the Scottish Parliament are exaggerated, but I do not have comprehensive experience all over Scotland of how the system works. I know that people whose views I respect have concerns about it and they have been articulated here in our debate.

I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is partly responsible for forcing upon the Electoral Commission a numerical priority. We have had two experiences of this in Scotland. One was in a review of boundaries for the Scottish Parliament elections, when my recollection was that the instruction that went out to the Scottish Boundary Commission was in its interpretation so restrictive that it took the basic building block and just applied it numerically from one starting point across Scotland. With one or two exceptions, none of its recommendations survived the appeal process or presentation to the sheriff principal because they were ridiculous in relation to communities. I remember the debates about the constituency boundaries and voting systems Bill, when my noble friends were queuing up to say that that is exactly what would happen if we forced that structure, or any part of it, on the Boundary Commission again through that legislation. So, in a sense, this legislative body has exacerbated the problem through that legislation.

I accused the noble Lord—I hope not too seriously—of being part-author of that problem. However, he may not have voted against the attempts that were made to ameliorate the effect or to stop it, but I have a recollection, certainly, of people from his Benches voting against the amendments that were tabled through the best endeavours of people on this side of the House who knew exactly how it would work and tried to prevent it happening. If it does happen, some people will have been the authors of their own misfortune by creating a separation between communities and constituencies.

We have yet to see how the review of constituency boundaries will work out but I predict confidently that when people realise how they will take effect in their communities, Members of Parliament of all parties will be screaming from the rooftops. Not only that, communities from all over the country will come to Members of Parliament and politicians and say, “What are you doing here? What have you done?”—and it will be interesting to see how many people stick by the arguments that they made during the passage of the Bill as a justification for doing this. However, that is perhaps another matter. I did not introduce the issue into the debate but I have taken advantage of the opportunity to make my point.

Having supported the general tenor of the debate—that the time has come for a review—I say to my noble friend that I do not think this is the vehicle for it. Earlier in the debate I understood the Minister to indicate, possibly in anticipation of this amendment, that the Government were minded to explore whether the time had come for a review; that they were going to do so in an appropriate way by consulting across parties; and that the voting system for the Scottish Parliament could be included if there was consensus and agreement for such a review.

That is, of course, the way in which we should proceed with all constitutional change; we should consult and seek consensus so that we can go forward. No political party owns the constitution and we all have a responsibility to preserve certain parts of it to hand on to future generations. It belongs to the people, not to us, and we should ensure that we do not seek party advantage out of a review of the constitution. If there is to be constitutional change in this area, that is the appropriate way to do it—not by, with all due respect to my noble friend, a provision in this Bill.

The structure that my noble friend has suggested has many of the right ingredients for a review. The timing that he proposes, however, would, if we pass the amendment, divert us from what should be the focus of our attention for that period of time and until the referendum in Scotland—that is, making the progressive, proper, forward-looking argument for keeping Scotland in the union; we should not use any of our resources for considering the system for electing Members to the Scottish Parliament. In my view—and I am afraid to say that this is where my gratitude to my noble friend runs out—this is the wrong vehicle. I prefer the Minister’s indication that it will be done in an appropriate way by a review instituted with some degree of consensus. The discussion needs to go beyond political parties into civic Scotland. It is the wrong time, but I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing this debate.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has generated a considerable amount of discussion on the merits or demerits, as perceived by noble Lords, of the present electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. I declare a non-interest: I was not at the noble Lord’s party, but I can assure him that that has no bearing whatever on the response I will give to his amendment.

He wishes to set up a committee to review the electoral system used to elect Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is tempting to go through the history of how we arrived at the electoral system we have. I shall resist that temptation, other than to say, as was indicated, that it was a compromise. It was obvious at the time and is the case. My noble friend Lord Steel said that there was a commitment to review the system after two elections. I do not remember such a commitment but, nevertheless, the Arbuthnott commission was established jointly, if my memory serves me correctly, by both the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government to look at the electoral system. It reported, recommending some revisions to the electoral system. I try to remind myself what they were. The Arbuthnott commission recommended that the mixed-member proportional system we have for elections to the Scottish Parliament should be revised to give voters more choice. It suggested that the closed list should be replaced by an open one, that the boundaries should be based on local authority areas and that a role should be defined for the regional MSP. Self-evidently, these recommendations were not taken forward or implemented.

The commission went on to say that,

“our revised electoral system, if implemented, should be reviewed following the experience of two elections. If further reform is judged necessary, consideration should be given at that time to introducing the single transferable vote for Scottish Parliament elections”.

As I have indicated, that revised system has not been implemented. The Calman commission perhaps read more into that and interpreted it as saying that in any event there would be a further review after two more elections—ie, after 2011. My colleagues who sat with me on the Calman commission will no doubt recall that we did not make any recommendations on the voting system as such because of the very recent Arbuthnott review, but also because there might have been a future review.

As I indicated in an earlier debate, specifically on another aspect of the electoral system and the regional list Member also standing in the constituency, the Government have stated their intention to consider what has been said by a review of the electoral system by both the Calman and Arbuthnott commissions. Indeed, in the Command Paper published alongside the Scotland Bill on St Andrew’s Day 2010, Ministers said that they recognised that the Calman commission,

“considered whether the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament should be reformed or devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Previously, the Arbuthnott Commission had reported in 2006 stating that there should be a review of the electoral system after the 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament—the Government will consider this recommendation, taking into account the views of the new Scottish Parliament, following the May 2011 elections”.

Clearly, as indicated by the debate we have had this afternoon, there is support in a number of quarters for some form of review of the electoral system. However, the Government believe that they could take forward that review only with the full support of all parties in the Scottish Parliament, along with the benefit of the detailed consideration that this Government are committed to. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that there is perhaps some nervousness about seeking to change the rules after they delivered a result that many of us did not like. That is a fair point. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, also made the important point that there are perhaps more important constitutional issues that we should focus on at this time, not least the fundamental question of Scotland’s place in our United Kingdom. Perhaps now is not the appropriate time to start a review of the electoral system. I have indicated that if there is that consensus to take it forward at some future time, we would be willing to consider it, but this is not the appropriate time to do so.

I think that we all share two views that were expressed earlier. First, I endorse what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said on the standing and importance of a Member of Parliament in his or her community. He said that those of us who have had the privilege to serve as Members of Parliament take very seriously that we represent the entire community and not just those who voted for us. That sense of representation and the privilege that follows those of us who have done that is important. That links into what the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said on the duty of all us to consider how as politicians—elected or not—and as a political system we can re-engage with the people who our laws affect. That will not be done just through a change to an electoral system. There are a whole host of things but it is something we would do well to remember.

For clarification, on the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on Amendment 1, I repeat that we will see what consensus there is about looking at that. In the spirit of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There are two points here. First, it has been recognised in earlier debates that this Boundary Commission review will be on a much shorter timescale than many previous Boundary Commission reviews, which underlines the point as to why it is not possible for us to move the date forward continuously. For completeness, I should note that the English Boundary Commission’s fifth periodical report about projected electorate changes, which were published in 2007—and there may be an amendment at some point on these issues—said about estimated electorate changes that it was sometimes asked to take into account projected growth or decline, but usually growth, in the electorate. The commission said that such projections were considered to be speculative and that it did not have regard to them, but that when it was satisfied that growth or decline would occur in the very near future—such as in the case of a large housing development nearing completion—it felt able to take such factors into account. There was some effort, but it was based on substantive grounds and not on the sort of estimates that attend population figures. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been extremely indulgent of these interventions, but they are very helpful if they discourage people from making speeches about issues that he has addressed. My question relates directly to the last point that he made, which is at least some recognition that there will be population movements, which must be accommodated in drafting constituency boundaries in anticipation. My understanding of the Bill is that even that minor recognition of population changes will not be possible if the Bill becomes law. Am I correct in that understanding?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If I have got it wrong I shall say so, but it was not speculative, which is what the Boundary Commission is invited to do. It has indicated that if it comes up at the stage of the representations in the consultation, it might be able to talk about some hard, factual and practical changes. I shall confirm, I hope sooner rather than later, that that is possible.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Thursday 9th December 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the draft order consolidates the rules for the conduct of the Scottish Parliament elections and ensures that the accepted recommendations from the Gould report will apply for the May 2011 election. The draft order has been available to electoral administrators and political parties since it was laid in Parliament on 25 October, more than six months ahead of the 2011 election. Indeed, an earlier version of the draft order was circulated to electoral administrators in April and to political parties in June. Most of us in this House who are still here will recall that more than 180,000 votes were lost due to rejected ballot papers in the 2007 Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. It was agreed across the parties that that is totally unacceptable in a modern democracy and, understandably, there was widespread public outrage at the time.

Mr Ron Gould, who was commissioned by the Electoral Commission to review the 2007 Scottish elections, concluded that six main factors contributed to confusion and to the level of rejected papers. First, he identified many problems on the design of ballot papers. Secondly, a new proportional voting system for local government elections had been introduced and voters were confused by combined elections that used two different electoral systems. Thirdly, there was poor co-ordination of the publicity campaigns of the Electoral Commission, the Scottish Government and others. Fourthly, Mr Gould identified problems caused by electronic counting. Fifthly, he found that there was fragmented and late legislation and a lack of involvement from electoral administrators in the legislative process. Sixthly, he said that there was a lack of co-ordination within the electoral community and a fragmented approach to planning.

There is no doubt that public confidence needed to be repaired after the problems experienced in 2007, but I believe that a successfully administered UK general election in Scotland earlier this year will have gone some way towards doing that. I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has continued the work started by the previous Administration on implementing those Gould recommendations that were accepted by the Government at the time.

In relation to Gould’s recommendation that there should be a six-month cut-off period for changes in the law governing the conduct of elections, we have made sure that electoral administrators and political parties are well versed in the changes to legislation well in advance of May 2011. The target date of 5 November for making the order was always going to be challenging for whichever party won the recent general election. However, the projected date for making the order is still considerably earlier than at the previous Scottish Parliament election, for which the relevant order was made less than two months before the poll.

The draft order applies to next year’s election the Gould and Scottish Affairs Committee recommendations that were accepted by the previous Government. I accept that the draft order is large, so I will focus on the main changes since 2007. However, before doing so, I want to refer to a correction slip that Members may have seen associated with the order. The correction slip makes a number of typographical corrections to the instrument that will become part of the final order for printing if it is approved by Parliament.

It is also appropriate to comment on the four points on the order raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Article 2 defines “European Parliamentary Election”, although that term is not used in the text of the order. Rule 20(3)(a) in Schedule 2 includes within the minor errors in nomination papers that returning officers can correct,

“errors as to a person’s electoral number”.

However, unlike the nomination papers for election to the other place, the nomination papers for Scottish parliamentary elections do not contain proposers’ electoral numbers, which renders the reference unnecessary. Both those errors, while regrettable, have no effect on the operation of the order. The Scotland Office will ensure that returning officers are aware that the reference to electoral numbers can safely be ignored and the unnecessary provisions will be removed at the first suitable opportunity to amend the order.

The committee also highlighted Article 3(1), which deals with disregarding late alterations to the register of electors, and Article 4(5), which deals with the effect of alterations to the register where there has been an appeal against a registration officer’s decision. Those provisions have been in substantially similar form in previous versions of the order since 2002 and, so far as I am aware, have not prejudiced voters or the effective administration of previous elections. On reviewing the articles in light of the committee’s comments, we are of the view that there is an overlap with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that renders them largely unnecessary. Unfortunately, those points were not raised until after the draft order had been considered by the Electoral Commission and had been laid.

We propose proceeding with the order in its current form and will revisit the provisions once we have had the benefit of consultation with the Electoral Commission and other interested parties. Since the equivalent provisions in previous orders have apparently not caused difficulty for voters or electoral administrators at the elections in 2003 or 2007, we do not anticipate there being any difficulty with the provisions being made as drafted.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Before he moves too far away from the issue of defective drafting, perhaps I may raise a point with him. As he knows, I lived through part of this process in government because I became Secretary of State after the 2007 election and received the Gould recommendations and the Electoral Commission report. I accept entirely what the Minister says about the errors having little, if any, effect. My concern is that, to others, such errors may appear to show a consistent inaccuracy in the machinery for dealing with these issues. The Minister will not be able to check this now, but I refer him to the observations of his right honourable friend Mr Alistair Carmichael, who was the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland when I reported to Parliament on the report. Mr Carmichael suggested that history revealed that the electoral machinery that was servicing elections in Scotland was not fit for purpose. I am concerned that dismissing these errors in this way does not draw Ministers' attention to what may be a fundamental systemic problem in the machinery that is in danger of repeating the previous problem.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what the noble Lord says. I could not quite remember where he was in the chronology of the Gould report, but he has now confirmed that he was the Secretary of State who received the report. The point that he makes is perfectly fair. However, the errors were spotted only very late in the day and have been drawn to the attention of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They were not spotted by the Electoral Commission when it looked at the draft order, nor by the electoral officers to whom the drafts were sent out, either on this occasion or on two previous occasions. That does not excuse the fact that the errors are regrettable and must be looked at. The point is fairly made that perhaps such errors flag up the need to have a thorough-going review of the orders. That said, as the noble Lord acknowledged in his intervention, there is nothing in the draft order that should impair in any way the operation of the elections in May next year. As I have indicated, we will draw the matter to the attention of the Electoral Commission for further consideration. Indeed, I think it has been suggested that the orders could possibly have been withdrawn and relaid. However, given the statutory obligation to consult the Electoral Commission, timing was one of the key issues that Mr Gould’s report flagged up. Therefore, it is important that we proceed with the draft order, while acknowledging, with regret, the errors that exist.

I turn to the substance of the draft order. The draft order consolidates legislation on the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections, so that the majority of rules governing those elections are now in one document, which we hope will make it easier for electoral administrators and political parties to use. The draft order sets out for the 2011 elections that we will return to a manual count of ballot papers for both the Scottish Parliament constituency and regional elections. There will be separate ballot papers for the constituency and regional votes, unlike in 2007, when both the constituency and regional votes were on a single ballot paper. Registered party names must be used on ballot papers and the design of the ballot paper follows the principles set out in the Electoral Commission’s publication Making your mark—Good practice for designing voter materials: guidance for government policy-makers.

There will be a longer timetable for running the election—increased from 21 days to 28 days—and, to accommodate administrative demands of increased postal voting, there will be a longer period between the close of nominations and the date of election, with an increase from 16 days before the poll to 23 days. The deadline for registering to vote by post and the earliest time that postal votes can be issued is still 11 days before the poll. The longer period between close of nominations and the date of election will help to accommodate the increased demand to vote by post. Once all the names of all the candidates are known, ballot papers can be printed without any further delays and sent out immediately after the deadline for registering for a postal vote has passed. For consistency, we have brought the control of donations to candidates and limits on candidates’ expenditure into line with the principles set out in the Westminster rules.

Apart from the consolidation of the 2008 and 2009 amendments to the 2007 order, the main new changes that have been made are: new requirements for the review of polling districts and places; the application to candidates at Scottish parliamentary elections, other than party list candidates, of the regime for control of donations to candidates that applies to UK parliamentary elections; limits to the expenses that may be incurred by or on behalf of candidates, other than party list candidates, in the pre-candidacy or so-called long campaign period before a Scottish parliamentary general election; revised requirements for candidates’ returns as to election expenses; revised requirements for the information that has to appear on election publications; an increase in the minimum period between the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the day of poll from 21 days to 28 days, which reflects the increase in the overall timetable for Scottish Parliament elections recommended in the Gould report; and provision for electoral registration officers to supply returning officers and other persons or organisations with a consolidated version of the register that takes account of any alterations, as opposed to having to provide a copy of the original register and individual copies of the notices of alteration. There is no longer to be a separate timetable for by-elections.

In addition, the draft order provides for: minor errors on nomination forms to be corrected by either the constituency or regional returning officer; grandparents or grandchildren to assist a person with disabilities to vote at a polling station; a requirement on the voter to sign the tendered votes list; the responsibility for the storage of election documents to be transferred from sheriff clerks to constituency returning officers. The provisions on the death of a candidate during the election period have also been revised. Changes have been made to what information on Members should be entered in the Scottish Parliament’s returns book and to restrict the availability of the returns book for public inspection to the life of the Parliament or to such later date as the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament may direct. The electoral registration officer is now required to inform people that they have been appointed as a proxy and of the length of their appointment.

The draft order provides for limited access to, and for the supply of copies of, absent voting records, such as the postal voters list, for candidates, political parties and elected representatives as well as for public inspection of those records under supervision. The draft order allows the returning officer to determine which of a candidate’s proposed agents are to be appointed for the purpose of attending the postal voting proceedings if the list submitted by the candidate contains more names than authorised by the returning officer.

As Members of your Lordships’ House know, the Government wish to proceed with the referendum on the UK general election voting system on 5 May next year. The Bill dealing with that is currently under consideration in your Lordships’ House—indeed a number of noble Lords have participated in those debates. On Monday, your Lordships’ House rejected an amendment that would have prevented the referendum poll from taking place on 5 May 2011, when the elections are scheduled.

In closing my introductory remarks, I wish to make reference to the Scotland Bill, which signals the Government’s commitment to implement the proposals contained in the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution, including the recommendation to devolve responsibility for the administration of elections. Indeed, no doubt the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will be taken into account by those who administer elections in the future. The Scotland Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 30 November, but it is clear that the Bill will not receive Royal Assent ahead of the May 2011 elections.

Of course, not all of Ron Gould’s recommendations were for the United Kingdom Government to act on; some of them were for the Scottish Government, the Electoral Commission or, indeed, for electoral administrators to implement. I hope that this House is reassured that the draft order will ensure that we take the necessary steps recommended by Ron Gould—accepted and adopted by the previous Administration and incorporated into the draft order—and ensure a successful election in May 2011. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I support and welcome this order, despite the defects. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its sixth report and the work it has done in identifying these defects. Together with other Members of your Lordships’ House, I received a letter from a man who has been described in the other place as an SNP lawyer. It contains a briefing that sets out a number of points relating to drafting in areas where this order could be improved. I do not support the general thrust of the argument that we should have taken this opportunity to go beyond consolidation of the legislation and gone into substantial revision in interpreting Mr Gould’s thinking and changing parts of the existing legislation. That would have involved the whole scope of consultation which was not possible in the time that was available. I am pleased that the coalition Government have continued the work that was started under the previous Government—and indeed that I started as Secretary of State. I welcomed Ron Gould’s recommendations in the main, although I did not welcome or accept all of them. I am pleased the coalition Government are setting about the painstaking and difficult work of implementing those recommendations.

I cannot avoid making one or two points because I think they have to be on the record. As I have said, I was the Secretary of State who received Mr Gould’s report via the Electoral Commission. I have to say that the environment in which that report was received was unedifying in many ways. Many people in Scottish politics were trying to avoid responsibility for what had happened in May 2007, and there was one particular pretty appalling attempt to load all the blame onto one individual. I will come back to that in a moment.

The Gould report, read properly, did not reflect well on Scottish political parties, or on the machinery that existed for conducting elections. It clearly was not able to accommodate the level of complexity that it had imposed upon itself by decisions and was not able to conduct the elections on the day—the joint elections with complicated ballot papers—in a way that ensured that everybody who turned up and properly presented themselves could vote. That was a collective failure, but there were many people who were scattering to the winds and re-writing history to avoid their responsibility for that time. However, problems in the machinery were identified, and I think that those problems were shared by all. I do not exclude the Electoral Commission or any of the other organisations, individual returning officers or some local authorities; everybody bore a share of that responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am significantly disappointed in the Minister, because I set exactly for him where the trap was and he walked right into it. In my view, it is entirely inappropriate to edit this man’s words. They have to be read in their entirety. The debate about his recommendations was bedevilled by the editing of his words, sometimes down to parts of paragraphs in order to make points. This man is an expert. He reported in full. He wrote a memorandum, every word of which I am sure he pored over, to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. In the sentence immediately before the one that the noble and learned Lord chose to read, he clearly made the point that if a referendum was conducted at the same time as an election, it would overshadow the election, and that would not be an appropriate thing to do.

That is the argument that I make. Of course it is possible to conduct these two mechanisms at the same time. Of course it is possible for Scots to get their brains around putting Xs on different bits of paper in the right order. The point that he makes, which is consistently ignored, is one that has been made repeatedly to this coalition Government: they are doing a disservice to the Scottish Parliament, to the Scottish people and to their election by creating an environment in which another issue will overshadow that election. That is the point that he makes and the one that needs to be addressed.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not think that I walked into any trap; I acknowledged that Mr Gould had said that he would prefer a separate date.

I ask the noble Lord to reflect that the first election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 was held just a matter of weeks after the NATO engagement in Kosovo. That issue dominated much of the election period. Indeed, he will no doubt recall the leader of the Scottish National Party starting the election campaign by saying that it was error of some proportion—I think he said that it was an unpardonable folly. That was a huge issue that dominated the news, but no one suggested at the time that it detracted from the proper discussion and debate about the issues that the new Scottish Parliament was going to debate.

The noble Lord will also recall that in 2003, some six weeks before the election, under the leadership of his right honourable friend Mr Tony Blair, this country invaded Iraq. The noble Lord supported it; I did not. Nevertheless, it was an issue of considerable importance—neither of us would disagree with that. The whole invasion campaign dominated the period of the Scottish election campaign. I do not think that anyone suggested that debates on the issues that the Scottish Parliament was responsible for, be that health, education, transport or local government, were in any way impeded and that politicians did not engage in those debates as they went to the hustings in the May 2003 election.

I suspect that, by comparison, however important we may think a referendum on the alternative vote system for the House of Commons is, in my view that does not compare in gravity with the invasion of Iraq. I have no doubt that when it comes to the lead-up to the election, the people of Scotland will be able to distinguish clearly between the issues involved in the election of Members to the Scottish Parliament and the issue that they will be asked to address of how the other place should be elected in future.

The noble Lord seemed to suggest in his remarks that it was a constitutional outrage to link two polling opportunities together. He will no doubt recall, or maybe he does not, that in May 1998 the Government, of which I suspect he was not a member then but was subsequently a member, actually combined the referendum on the London mayor with the London local elections. I look back and consider that the general election of 2001 was linked to the local elections; indeed, they were both moved—at least, the local elections were moved and the general election piggybacked them—to June 2001 because of foot and mouth disease.

I think that I am right in saying that in 2009 the Government of which the noble Lord had recently ceased to be a member moved the local elections to coincide with the European election, and that the right honourable gentleman Gordon Brown was quite happy this year to combine the general election with the English elections that were already taking place. The combination of elections is not exactly unprecedented; there has been quite a lot of it in recent times.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The only reason I proceeded with an historical analysis was that the noble and learned Lord’s noble friend said that it was “almost unprecedented”. I was identifying a number of occasions on which it had happened, under the auspices of the Government of which both noble Lords were, at some time, members.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

The coincidence of elections with foot and mouth, or with events such as conflicts, may be things we have to live through. I understand all that. I will not rehearse a speech I made at a Committee stage; the Minister was in the House when I made it. My point then was that I concede that there are, in some circumstances, arguments for what I call analogous elections, where the same parties are competing broadly over the same body of policies, either at local, regional, mayoral or national elections. There is some argument for combining them. My point, which I thought he understood, was that there is a strong body of academic, analytic and political opinion that says, “To conduct a referendum, which because of the nature of a referendum involves cross-party working and confusion, potentially against a background of party-political politics, with a party-political contest, is designed to confuse”. My point in the other debate, which I will allude to briefly, was that, particularly in Scotland, where our media is and will be dominated by arguments from London, this will do an extraordinary disservice to the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament. Of all Members of this House, the Minister, having been a Member of that Parliament, and knowing how much it is valued by the people of Scotland, should recognise that. He should have listened to that Parliament’s view.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure about the confluence of interests between a European election and local elections; they are somewhat far apart. However, I take the noble Lord’s views that referendums are somewhat different. Of course, he will no doubt give us an explanation of why the Government in which he served brought together a referendum with local elections in 1998.

On what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, said, I indicated in my earlier remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that I have fought two elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and 2003, both against the backdrop of war. It did not impede the people of Scotland from being able to address and identify what the issues were in the election. The fact that there is a concurrent referendum campaign in May next year will in no way impede them from evaluating from what the parties are putting before them—nor, indeed, from making up their own minds as to whether they wish the alternative vote system to be used for future elections to the other place or not.

I fully understand the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, as I am sure that he wishes to be in the Scottish Parliament today to express his support for the Scotland Bill. He has amendments tabled for later stages in Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and I rather suspect that this argument has got some way to go yet.

On the timing, the order will not be made until within six months. Nevertheless, the order was also laid within the six months. Subject to the typographical errors in the draft, it will be the same order that had been laid and circulated to political parties, returning officers and electoral administration officers. Therefore, while the form did not meet the six months, the substance certainly did. I hope that noble Lords will accept that. The timetable was set in motion by the previous Administration. I have no criticism of that, but it was always going to be very tight.