Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Crickhowell

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crickhowell (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spoken previously in this debate but am prompted to do so partly because for a long time I was a member of the Constitution Committee and therefore take a good deal of note of what it says. I am also prompted to speak partly because of what has just been said. The trouble is that we do not have a written constitution but we are advancing ad hoc, step by step, and it is a very dangerous process. We will very shortly be debating a Wales Bill and I can just see it happening—we will be told that the Welsh Parliament has to be made permanent and cannot be altered by this British Parliament. This is a matter that affects the United Kingdom as a whole and therefore we should take seriously the clear observations of the Constitution Committee and of my noble friend Lord Forsyth.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has just indicated, it is very clear that there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is just a great pity that the Government will not accede to the request from all sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom for a constitutional convention, in which many of these relationships could be properly looked at. The right reverend Prelate reminded me that we have to be careful with the wording here. To say so stridently that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent will start raising doubts about whether anyone would think anything else. That is why care has to be taken here.

In the 1990s I was part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It came up with the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament, which, to its credit, the Labour Party, elected in 1997, faithfully put into legislative form. I remember many discussions in the constitutional convention about how to entrench the Parliament. We kept going round in circles on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and on whether we should have a referendum. In the end, the convention decided that it could make no such proposal. The Labour Party proposed a two-question referendum. My party and I were opposed to that as it was not what the convention had agreed, but I think that I was wrong. The fact that we had a referendum in 1997 and that the Parliament was established on the basis of a very strong popular vote in Scotland meant that it found its own form of political entrenchment. We could go round in circles here having a highbrow constitutional discussion on the nature of the sovereignty of Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, used the words “political reality” in moving his amendment. At the end of the day, we come back to political reality. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the people of Scotland voted to abolish the Scottish Parliament, primary legislation in this Parliament would be required for that to happen, but of course if this Parliament chose to ignore what the people of Scotland said, that would bring about a constitutional crisis because political reality would kick in. That is why I also disagree with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is saying that if the Parliament were removed, it would have to be done not only on the vote of the Scottish people but on the vote of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament might well vote to get rid of the Parliament because it was not doing a particularly good job. Therefore, you do not give the veto to the people whom you want to get rid of and who have a vested interest in keeping the Parliament.

These things are hypothetical because, quite simply, I do not see them happening. That is why I think that political reality is more relevant to this debate than highbrow discussions on parliamentary sovereignty. As ever, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Crickhowell

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crickhowell]

The Minister referred earlier to a possible catastrophic but remote event. The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, very sadly, catastrophic events are too common. Members of the Royal Family are by their nature public figures and they are often together. The possibility of a catastrophic event should be taken into account. I, for one, am still not at all convinced by the argument from the Front Bench and am inclined to support the amendment as it stands.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the point I made is that we need to provide a balance between militating against a potentially catastrophic event and the risk of unnecessarily impinging upon the lives of those who are more distant from the Throne. While it is reasonable for different rules to apply to the Royal Family, a requirement to obtain consent to marry is a real restriction on people and as such a very strong argument should be made to extend it. I have heard various people say why six is not acceptable. However, I have heard no reason for 12, with the possible exception that it is the number of apostles or the number of former pennies in a shilling. It is also said that it is the number of jurors on a jury, but of course in Scotland that is 15. It is not a question to which there is a mathematical answer.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Crickhowell

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I thank also my noble friend Lord Forsyth for moving his amendment which has stimulated so much debate, although I suspect that, even without it, we would have had a considerable debate on the issue. I understand from my noble friend Lady Garden that there have been some 20 contributions, including an Englishman, a Welshman, a Northern Irishman and, regrettably, only one woman.

[Lord Crickhowell]

There were two Welshmen.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I offer my sincere apologies to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. It has been a very passionate debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, this is not necessarily where we want to be. I do not think that anyone here has advocated a referendum or, certainly, independence. Nevertheless, we recognise and respect the outcome of the Scottish election of May 2011 and the manifesto commitment of the Scottish National Party to have a referendum.

I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, supported the view that the process was being done properly. I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as a member of the Constitution Committee for his contribution. I am grateful not just for the most recent report of that committee on this matter but for the report which the committee produced in February last year following the consultation which the United Kingdom Government launched. In that report, the Constitution Committee welcomed the proposal,

“that a section 30 order be made to confer on the Scottish Parliament clear competence to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence”.

From that flow a number of the issues which have been dealt with in this debate. It is also fair to point out that, in its most recent report on the referendum, the committee stated:

“We welcome the fact that the Agreement reached between the two Governments accords with our previous recommendations. The question of legislative competence is addressed, it is intended that the referendum will pose a single question on independence, and the Electoral Commission will play the lead role in advising on the referendum”.

That is why I cannot accept the argument that the outcome of the negotiations was weak, as it has been described by some noble Lords. As the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons said:

“The Secretary of State and his team are to be congratulated on their willingness to compromise and reach a consensus with the Scottish Government so that the referendum can be held on a basis to which all can consent”.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, mentioned the evidence that he gave to both the United Kingdom Government’s consultation and the Scottish Government’s consultation, where he said:

“I hope that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government will be willing to compromise on all of the key issues to ensure we have a clear outcome in a referendum and an outcome that is accepted by everyone as the fair result of a fair campaign”.

That is what we sought to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, quite fairly, that of huge significance was the fact that it was a single question. I would certainly find myself in some difficulty if I was to come before the House today trying to defend an order or a process that had led to an outcome where there could be more than one question—the so-called multi-option referendum. As the noble Lord rightly said, there is a world of difference between a referendum where one part of the United Kingdom wishes to secede from the United Kingdom, which is a matter, as successive Governments have accepted, for that part of the United Kingdom, and one where there is to be a different relationship within the United Kingdom, with further powers being devolved. That is an important distinction and it is why I am very glad indeed that what we bring before the House today is an order which will provide for a single-question referendum.

It is inevitable in these circumstances that we come to the role of the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the wording in paragraph 8 of the agreement, which contains the reference to “intelligibility”. I hope that I indicated why that word was used—it is a statutory word, if you like—but of equal importance is the way in which that has been interpreted by the Electoral Commission. Mr John McCormick, who is the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, said on 9 November, when the Scottish Government submitted their question:

“We will assess the referendum question to see whether voters find it clear, simple and neutral. If it isn’t, we’ll say what needs to be done”.

I shall come to the issue of the question in a moment, because the other issue, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, is the role of the Electoral Commission. Paragraph 12 of the agreement, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, sets out the role of the Electoral Commission in referendums. It states:

“Both governments agree on the importance of the referendum being overseen in an impartial way by bodies that can command the confidence of both sides of the campaign. The Electoral Commission is responsible for overseeing referendums held under PPERA. PPERA gives the Electoral Commission responsibility for: commenting on the wording of the referendum question; registration of campaigners; designating lead campaign organisations; regulating campaign spending and donations; giving grants to lead campaign organisations; publishing guidance for permitted participants; reporting on the referendum process; the conduct of the poll; and the announcement of the result”.

Paragraph 14 of the agreement states:

“Both governments agree that the Electoral Commission should fulfil all these functions in respect of the independence referendum, with the exception of the conduct of the poll”—

which will be done by an electoral management board which has already been established for local elections in Scotland and it is widely agreed across that parties that that should continue—

“and announcement of the result, and the giving of grants”.

The reason why the giving of grants is excluded is that the Scottish Government propose that there will be no grants of public money to the lead campaigns. That is the nature of the oversight by the Electoral Commission which has been proposed.

On foreign donations, it is proposed—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Crickhowell

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I have made it very clear what the Government’s position is. Obviously, I would not ask my noble friend to come in for a meeting as a waste of time but I hope that he will take up the offer of a meeting.

[Lord Crickhowell]

Last night, I supported an amendment on the 10 per cent question that was moved from the Opposition Front Bench, which had wide support in the House. Very wisely, on that occasion my noble and learned friend said that he would take on board very seriously the arguments and take them back to his colleagues for consideration. He made it very clear that he was making no commitment. He could not assure us that we would get what we wanted but he assured us that he would take the argument back. The Minister does not seem to be doing the same thing tonight. I beg him to take the same view tonight and to take the argument back. Otherwise, I will join noble Lords very firmly in the Lobby against the Government.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not wish to suggest that by doing so the Government are about to change their mind. Equally, I would not ask the noble Lord to come in for a waste of time. As I indicated in my opening remarks, this debate will be read by my honourable friend in the other place. I have indicated a willingness to meet the noble Lord and would not ask him to waste his time by having such a meeting. I hope that he would be willing to take up that offer.

National Assembly for Wales: Referendum

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Crickhowell

Thursday 17th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I wholly reject any allegation that the Government are dragging their feet. I quote from the letter from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to the First Minister:

“Your decision that the date and question should not be considered until after the General Election has meant that we have not yet submitted a question to the Electoral Commission, which has confirmed that it will need at least 10 weeks to carry out its assessment and then report”.

I hope that I indicated earlier to your Lordships’ House that the timeline is an extensive one. We want to ensure that this happens properly, and we do not want to take any risk that by taking short cuts we could open ourselves up to legal challenge. I believe that we are taking the proper steps in the right order.

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, as one who, during the debate on the Government of Wales Bill, said that he would vote in favour of the move proposed in the referendum, I ask my noble and learned friend whether he thinks extraordinary the suggestion that the right honourable Peter Hain should be pressing us when in a major constitutional speech at Cardiff University last October he said that he did not think that the matter should be brought forward quickly—certainly not before 2011.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, having taken office I am discovering that there are many things that I am responsible for, but one of them is not to answer for Mr Peter Hain, thank goodness. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State attaches a huge priority to this. We are taking the steps as quickly as we can, and that is consistent with good governance.