Scotland: Smith Commission

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Monday 13th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I certainly agree that one of the primary responsibilities of government is the defence and security of the realm. The report, which was published two weeks ago by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons and the Economic Affairs Committee of this House, touched on a whole stream of important issues related to defence. Defence is one of the issues on which a paper will be published in the Scotland analysis series. It is important to recognise the benefits Scotland gets, not only from our defence of the UK but from the number of jobs that are dependent on the defence industries in Scotland.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, have the Government given collective consideration to how to get across to the general voting public in Scotland the facts that are being made available, in a department-by-department process? It is extremely important to bear in mind that the media are not giving detailed consideration to these issues. The Government might think it right to communicate with the electors directly on these matters. If we follow the pattern of the previous referendum, on alternative voting, we had two weeks of media coverage of that issue, although admittedly it was nothing like as important as the break-up of Britain. However, if we do not get detailed knowledge to an intelligent electorate, we could find that the public react against the general condition of the country at the time.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I take my noble friend’s point about the importance of communicating the arguments. The paper on currency to which I have just referred in my response to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, had so many points in it that some did not necessarily get the full airing that they might have. The next paper in the series will be on the financial services industry, and numerous issues could arise from that. It is not anticipated that there will be any separate government publication in the run-up to the election in the way that there was in the run-up to the EU referendum of 1975. However, it is important that the Government communicate these important messages and arguments for the union in a way that is readily accessible. It is important that they are underpinned by some weighty analysis, but there is also a case to be made for making sure that the arguments are readily available to the public.

Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Will my noble and learned friend indicate how the Scotland analysis programme is progressing, particularly with respect to monetary arrangements and the employment of citizens from either country, to enable the facts to be assimilated by the whole country and to inform the pre-referendum debate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they wish the referendum debate to be well informed. That is why we have embarked on the Scotland analysis programme. The first paper on the legal implications and the legal basis of independence was published last month. There will be future papers, including one on currency and financial regulation, which we hope will be published in the near future. It is important that we have a well informed debate, and certainly the United Kingdom Government, through these papers, are determined that we should have just that.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne indicated in moving this amendment, this is one of the key issues raised by this Bill. Certainly, his Amendments 10 and 11 and the consequential ones to the schedules are interesting and were flagged up at Second Reading. They are an interesting way of addressing what has been seen as a dilemma: if the sovereign was to be a Roman Catholic, how could that person also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

When I tried to answer my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s question as to whether the proposal was to allow the heir to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic or to remove discrimination, I think I said that it was both, and it is. Clause 2 is of symbolic importance because it removes a discrimination which I believe does not have a place in our society today. As I think I also indicated, and as has been accepted across the Chamber, these issues with regard to the sovereign being a Roman Catholic go much wider than the person who may ascend to the Throne being married to a Roman Catholic. The Government are committed to the Church of England as the established church in England with the sovereign as its Supreme Governor. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, says about a possible further examination. Certainly, the Government have no plans to do so. Indeed, the Government suggesting to Select Committees what they may or may not do probably is not good form. But he has made his proposal and there will be others who will have heard it. It may be that a Select Committee will choose to do that but I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to take that initiative.

I now turn to the idea of separation of the roles of sovereign and Supreme Governor.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Before my noble and learned friend leaves that point, will he indicate whether the Government are ready to enable such work to be done given the compression of time that we have had in discussing these matters? Would they be prepared to permit the Bill to proceed at a pace which would allow a Select Committee, such as the Constitution Committee, to consider these matters?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to disappoint my noble friend in my answer. I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill for taking this forward. This Bill seeks to deliver on three particular issues and I do not believe that that would be appropriate. I do not diminish the importance of the issues. It is very obvious that some people see this Bill as a Trojan horse for disestablishment and some are frightened in the opposite direction. I do not believe that this Bill is appropriate for that. Therefore, I cannot give my noble friend the encouragement or the assurance that he seeks with regard to allowing such a discussion. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was suggesting that it should be done in a timescale that would affect this Bill.

On the idea of separating the roles of sovereign and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, obviously it is self evident that that would represent a very major change to the role of the monarch in relation to the established church and undoubtedly would require extensive consultation. It is a significant diversion from the traditional role of the monarchy over recent centuries. The Government consider that the change in the law effected by Clause 2 is a valuable one but we do not believe that it is necessary for the Bill to go beyond that and to delve into the significant wider issues that this amendment raises.

The proposed amendments also open up a series of extremely difficult questions about the relationship between the sovereign and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and indeed whether such an arrangement could support the continued established place of the Church of England. For example, how would the coronation and accession oaths be taken? The oath of accession includes a promise to maintain and preserve the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church Government. Who would take this oath? Presumably it would not be appropriate for a regent who is a Supreme Governor of the Church of England to give any oath in respect of the Church of Scotland, and therefore would not be sovereign to make that statement. That one issue shows the host of different issues that would come up when the issue is examined in more detail.

As I have indicated, the Government have no intention of introducing any change in this matter. Given that both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have been very supportive of the changes that are actually in the Bill, I believe that we have found an appropriate balance through the legislation as drafted. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I understand that the creation of the Princedom of Wales, let along the matter of it going to a daughter, is very much a matter for the personal decision of the sovereign. The current Prince of Wales did not automatically become Prince of Wales upon Her Majesty’s accession in 1952; that did not happen until 1958. It is a matter for the sovereign, and I will seek to set that out in a letter which I will copy to others who contribute to this debate.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised a query about the efficient running of the estate between 1936 and 1952. There have of course throughout history been stretches when there has been no Duke of Cornwall, and the Duchy continues to today. I pay tribute to the leadership which the present Duke of Cornwall has given. When I was in the other place, my constituency, Orkney and Shetland, could not have been more remote from Cornwall. Even in Orkney and Shetland, however, we were aware of the work of the Duke of Cornwall on his estate. I see my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart in his place. Certainly, closer to home, I know of the work of the Duke of Rothesay in respect of the Castle of Mey estates since he inherited them from his late grandmother. Those tributes were rightly paid.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

As a footnote, I also commend the Duke of Cornwall for the work that he has done in setting up the North Highland Initiative: three separate charitable companies to promote the well-being of the area.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed. I certainly am aware of that and the contribution that my noble friend has also played in these developments.

As was perhaps surmised by my noble friend Lord Deben, there is of course nothing to stop a female heir having an active role in the running of the Duchy, but that would be a matter for the sovereign to decide at the appropriate time. As has already been recognised, a female heir apparent will not find herself at a financial disadvantage. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 broadly ensures that financial provision equivalent to the income from the Duchy is made for the heir apparent.

As was indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the Bill seeks to achieve three things set out in the first three clauses. It is about succession to the Crown. It is relevant to the other realms of which Her Majesty is Queen and head of state. I do not believe that this is the legislative vehicle in which to address a number of the other issues which have been raised. For these reasons I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I believe that this would go beyond the scope of the Bill. Something as profound as that could not be imported into the Bill without much further scrutiny and consideration. It is also important to remember that the provisions in the Bill removing an element of religious discrimination have been welcomed not just by the Church of England but by the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think that that is a stitch-up; it is a welcome recognition by both churches that this is an important change in our law. To go much wider than that, in fact, would require consideration that is not appropriate. We would be subjected to justified criticism if this were all rushed through as an amendment to the Bill in Committee, quite apart from all the implications for the other realms that have been so carefully consulted on over a long time.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Before my noble and learned friend leaves this matter, while recognising that the Bill may not be the right place to do what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has suggested, could he at least indicate that the Government might put in train discussions about this with other realms in the Commonwealth and consider whether this would be an appropriate direction in which to move?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but the Government do not have plans to do that, although it is quite clear from the contributions to this debate that it is an issue. However, it is not the policy of the Government to go down that road; therefore, I regret not to be able to give a more accommodating answer to my noble friend.

With regard to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, my noble friend Lord Lang thinks six is too limited, but my noble friend Lord Carlile thinks six is too wide. I explained that if one looks at the 240 years of history since the Act was passed, Queen Victoria was the furthest away from the Throne at the time of her birth, at fifth. Therefore, six is a realistic number. I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile and other contributors that, unlike the consequence of the Royal Marriages Act, which is that the marriage is void, the consequence of marrying without consent under this Bill would be that one would drop out of the line of succession, so some of the convention issues that my noble friend mentioned are properly addressed.

My noble friend Lord Lang was concerned that the Bill might put the sovereign under some pressure about whether someone was an appropriate person to marry. That could be the case today. There is probably unlikely to be any pressure if the person is 710th or whatever in line to the Throne, but even today, the first six still require the sovereign’s consent to marry.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked about judicial review. We do not believe that this could be reviewed. Although the decision would be taken on the advice of Ministers, it would be taken by the sovereign, and her decisions cannot be challenged in the courts.

My noble friends Lord Carlile and Lord Northbrook asked us to clarify the common law position with regard to the monarch’s consent. It is arguable that the common law no longer applies since it could be said that by legislating in 1772, Parliament has superseded the common law. The defects of the 1772 Act have frequently been pointed out, and the Government consider that there is a clear case for repealing and replacing it. A dowager queen is not in the line of succession, so the importance of royal consent is not as great as it is in the case of someone in the immediate line of succession. We do not see dealing with any possible surviving common law rules on consent as essential.

My noble friend made points about the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 that were picked up by my noble friend Lord Northbrook. It was argued that the Bill would allow a regent to be a Catholic. The effect of the Bill is not to make it possible for the regent to be a Catholic. Section 3 of the Regency Act provides that the regent is the person next in line of succession, if not disqualified, which a Catholic would be. A further disqualification is brought in under this Bill if a person in the first six in line of succession to the Throne marries without consent. That is the purpose of that clause.

My noble friend Lord Astor asked about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Historians will argue about whether the dukedom of Normandy is still live, but there is no doubt that within the Channel Islands the Queen is heralded and treated as the Duke of Normandy. Nothing in the Bill would change that. The Channel Islands have been consulted on this. The Bill will apply by necessary implication to the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories, which have been fully informed and consulted on this matter.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My noble and learned friend has indicated his firm view, which I am sure is shared by the House, that the Scottish Government should answer some of the questions that have been raised in this debate. Does he also accept—I presume that he does—that it is for the Government of the United Kingdom to put forward their views about what are the issues at risk? It is not necessary to answer all the questions, but they should at least make that clear. We cannot have any confidence that the Scottish Government will do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The very fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State posed these questions shows that the UK Government are seized of what the key questions are, as raised by your Lordships in debate. I will certainly ensure that colleagues right across the Government are aware of the kind of issues that have been raised in this debate. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom Government want to keep the United Kingdom together. We believe that this is the best option not only for Scotland but for the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that we want to ensure that there is a debate that is as informed as possible and that the case for Scotland continuing to be a part of the United Kingdom is made as forcefully as possible. Points raised by your Lordships today will certainly inform the arguments that are put forward in the referendum debate. I share the view of my noble friend that the sooner we get on with the substance of the debate and move on from process the better it will be.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have considerable sympathy and support for what my noble friend says. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was the first Peer to express a view on this matter who did not speak with a Scottish accent, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, also contributed to the debate. I am certainly acutely conscious—the Government are also acutely conscious of this fact—that although a referendum on independence is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide, nevertheless that process impacts on other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that this is a two-way process. I believe that Scotland is better off as part of the United Kingdom. I also believe that the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland being part of it. Therefore, other parts of the United Kingdom have a legitimate interest in this matter. A Section 30 order would have to come before your Lordships’ House, and indeed the House of Commons, for approval by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. However, it would not be attractive if the Section 30 order, as a result of a process of negotiation with the Scottish Government, had been decided and then presented to Parliament. This is not a treaty for which we are seeking ratification; it is a legislative process. Although I entirely accept all the arguments that have been forward in favour of the Section 30 process, I think this United Kingdom Parliament will feel that it is representative of the country as a whole and would want to feed into the process of getting the thing right so that it is not seen as a divisive issue which we have to pull down after the event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There has been considerable agreement between the two Governments on the role of the Electoral Commission, which is vital. I do not believe that we would get a fair, legal and decisive referendum if we did not involve the Electoral Commission. A signal as to why I believe that we can reach an agreement is that already, since I made a Statement on 10 January, the Scottish Government have come a long way and acknowledged the position of the Electoral Commission.

I hope that I have tried to express clearly what the Government believe are the key issues on this matter, without saying—

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. Will he leave it to the Electoral Commission to decide, in pursuance of this goal of decisiveness, that a majority of one vote would be decisive, or does he accept, particularly as regards the Cunningham amendment in the past, that Parliament ought to discuss that issue before it is put to the Electoral Commission?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I indicated that we are not generally disposed to supporting the idea of a threshold. My noble friend mentioned the Cunningham amendment, which related to a classic example of a referendum that many of us did not consider, at the end of the day, to be fair. Heaven forbid that we should ever find ourselves in a position whereby, after a referendum on independence, 30 years later one side or the other cries “foul”—with some justification. That is why the oversight of the Electoral Commission is very important.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth raised a point about timing to which I should like to respond. I was asked what the timetable would be. We should press on with this matter very early indeed. We should be pressing for early engagement with the Scottish Government immediately after the close of their consultation. There have already been preliminary discussions between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the First Minister—indeed, the Prime Minister met the First Minister. I am sure that they will receive representations. If the Scottish Ministers think that independence is such a wonderful thing, why do they want a delay in getting it? This is a matter on which we should seek to make substantive and early progress to allow their referendum to conclude.

I will take one further intervention before I make my final point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Picking up where the noble Lord, Lord Browne, left off, to be fair the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did say in moving his amendment that perhaps it was not necessarily one that he would wish to push. He recognised too that there would be some occasions when it would be appropriate for civil servants in the Scottish Government to engage in issues that were reserved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, highlighted the fact that with Section 30 orders—one of the early ones was on railways—that sort of engagement would not be unreasonable on that basis.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has generated a debate which I am sure will be noted beyond the walls of this Chamber. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth, about the very high quality of the Civil Service, which I have experienced as a Minister in the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. We now have a position whereby a statutory basis for management of the Civil Service was set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, an important measure. Civil servants working for the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government are all part of the United Kingdom Civil Service, and, crucially, the Civil Service Code forms part of civil servants’ terms and conditions of service. The code sets out the core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality, and the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, observed, the continuity that civil servants have been able to bring, not least in times of uncertainty following the election in 2010, has been quite remarkable, and one pays tribute to them for that.

It is the job of civil servants to support the elected Government of the day, and the Civil Service Code recognises the fact that civil servants working for the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government are required to support those Governments. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, in the area of devolution tensions are inevitable. Likewise, civil servants working for the United Kingdom Government are able to advise their Ministers on matters which are the responsibility of other Governments. It is important that civil servants recognise their obligations under the code and support their Ministers to the best of their ability, even in politically sensitive areas, when Administrations have different policies and different priorities. They must ensure that they remain politically neutral and avoid public advocacy of political views.

In the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, he grasped the sensitivity of this issue and raised some important points that will not be resolved in this debate or this Bill but are important and have to be considered. I was thinking of an example whereby the Scottish Government have executive devolution responsibilities for renewable energy. Likewise, matters of transmission charges are a responsibility for the UK Government. But it would be very awkward if not impossible for the Scottish Government to make decisions on renewable energy without having some advice and support from their civil servants about implications for transmission charges, so it is not always easy to disentangle respective responsibilities.

Comment has been made on various issues that have been highlighted publicly. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, asked about the present Cabinet Secretary, who has been fully cited on these issues and has recently visited Scotland. I am advised that he reiterated that it was appropriate for United Kingdom civil servants to work to support their Ministers in pursuing their objectives, even though that may mean in an era of devolution the pursuit of a different policy aim when Administrations have different objectives. It is important to reiterate once again that one great strength of the Civil Service, which has come through in this debate, is that both of these things—objective support for Ministers and political impartiality—should be taken seriously.

I do not intend to comment on the specific wording used by Sir Peter in his recent communications to staff. Whether or not a particular civil servant has acted in accordance with the code is not ultimately a matter for Ministers to determine; it is an internal issue for the Civil Service, and it would be improper for me to go over that line. What is essential is that civil servants support their Ministers firmly within the parameters set by the Civil Service Code.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Will the Minister consider whether the mode of investigation of alleged breaches of these codes of impartiality and independence could be improved? This is a continuing and growing anxiety across a wide spectrum of those involved in public affairs. Other professionals have modes of inquiry which enable the cases to be argued and a decision to be made. I think for example of the General Medical Council, which will decide whether or not there has been an impropriety. A purely hierarchical approach to the Civil Service on matters of this kind is not entirely adequate. We need to discuss, perhaps with the First Division Association, whether it would be encouraged to feel that its service would be greatly strengthened by there being such a procedure for looking at complaints which are made by affected members or the public generally.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there is no intention to change the manner of appointments under the Office of Public Appointments code. However, I will come on to talk about the consultation process that is due to take place, which by its very nature, as it is between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Ministers, will have a political dimension to it. One of the purposes of appointments under the Office of Public Appointments code is to ensure that there is indeed transparency and open competition and to achieve, as well, a balance of skills and backgrounds and avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

The amendment would change “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner” to,

“Crown Estate Commissioner for Scotland”.

Perhaps I may explain to my noble friend that “Scottish” is not intended to qualify “Crown”, or indeed to qualify the two words “Crown Estate”, but to qualify the three words “Crown Estate Commissioner”. There are Crown Estate commissioners and therefore “Scottish” is the adjective to be applied to them. Unless we put commas in, I am not quite sure how we could make it clearer than that.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

But the problem about “Scottish” being used as an adjective to qualify three words, or two words, is that it is not at all clear. It is extremely ambiguous as to whether the individual has to be Scottish and, if so, what definition is being applied. I think, for example, of the Duke of Atholl, who might be said to be Scottish but who spends practically no time in Scotland. Admittedly, his knowledge of Scotland may be quite considerable, but what does Scottish mean? I remember having a discussion about this with the Lord Lyon when I was gazetted. He claimed that I was Scottish because I had a Scottish name. Frankly, this is not sufficiently clear and the proposed amendment is much clearer.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the position is that it must be a person who knows about conditions in Scotland as they relate to the functions of the commissioners but it does not say that the person has to be of Scottish ancestry or indeed has to have a Scottish name. As we have already discussed and debated, they may have a number of other qualities and it should not be restricted simply to a knowledge of land management or the law. If we were to start to pin it down more than that, we would start to get into difficulties as we might be excluding people who have much more to offer and who have a lot of potential. Clearly, my noble friend is not satisfied, but if he has a better wording—

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that actually supports the argument that I was just making—that if the numbers are going up from European Union countries, a fortiori the numbers would increase from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is something that would have to be addressed. I do not think that my noble friend has actually thought that through.

Just as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that he might have to talk to the leadership of his party before the matter comes back at the next stage, so my noble friend Lord Forsyth said that I should draw this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and my noble friend Lord Maclennan asked that we think about this before Report stage. I do not think that it would be a service to the House if I did any other than say that obviously we have to reflect on the very strong views that have been expressed in this debate.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has just said, but the principle that my noble friend Lord Forsyth has advocated is one that could conceivably be important—not in the light of our previous experience, because that kind of discrimination has been anathema in the United Kingdom, but in establishing this precedent, which one can see being extended to other spheres. That might include the domicile of people taken into care because of illness in Scotland. If they happened to be domiciled in England, they might be subject to much higher charges, and that by law. There is a very important principle here, which I hope will not be confined just to education, although education is the immediate reason why we need to discuss these things.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I recognise the principle that my noble friend is enunciating. That is why I said that we do not know what the consequences would be of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. It goes right to the heart of the architecture of the Scotland Act—to Section 29, which makes certain legislation not law, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, remembers well from the days of the passage of the Bill in 1998. To add this as a principle of devolution when its possible consequences have not been thought through is something that I would not wish to accede to without much greater thought as to what its implications might be.

I conclude by making that commitment but I also have to conclude with the other principle—the principle of devolution. Inevitably, if you devolve matters, Governments may not choose the course that you would wish to see. It is probably not unfair to say that Mr Tony Blair was not entirely happy when he learnt what the Scottish Government were proposing in 1999 about abolishing tuition fees and bringing back more generous student grants, but he accepted that that was one consequence of devolution. If we pursue a line that has been sometimes advocated today, we run the risk of undermining the purpose of devolution. Differences in policies can develop, and we will not always agree with those differences. But if we constantly fight against the differences and produce ad hoc legislation if something comes up that we do not like—even if we do not like it with a considerable passion—we must do so with great care, because there is a principle of devolution that could be well undermined if we do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

It may be regarded as something of an impertinence for one who is not a Scots lawyer to intervene in such a debate and I therefore propose to confine my remarks. I hope that when we do come back to this, there will be a jury as well as judges sitting, and that we may hear the voice of the man in the street on this matter. Speaking with the view of the man in the street, I am bound to say that I find the Government’s position on this, and the views expressed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cullen and Lord Cameron, persuasive. It seems to me that the prime consideration is not whether or not the trial can be completed quickly, but whether or not justice is done. Those who are charged with an offence should have the right of appeal considered, unrelated to whether or not the issue is of public importance. It is of direct importance to the individuals involved in the trial. I may be completely off beam, and I recognise the risk of intervening in such a debate, but having listened to most of the arguments, I found them compelling, particularly on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first of all I thank all the noble Lords—noble and learned Lords—who have taken part. We may be small in number, but we have two former Lord Advocates, a former Solicitor-General and Senator of the College of Justice, and a former Lord Justice General. The experience that has been brought to bear on the issues has been quite considerable. We even have a member of the jury in my noble friend Lord Maclennan.

In retrospect it would have been easier if we could have had a more focused debate, but it is quite clear that we are going to return to this matter on Report and I certainly take on board the points that have been made. The grouping was intended to allow for a full discussion on this issue and all the different points in relation to it. I will certainly give consideration, through the usual channels, as to how we might group the amendments on Report so that we have some quite focused debate, particularly on the point of certification, which is possibly the most important point at issue.

I will come on to certification in a moment, but will briefly respond to some of the other points raised, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. He indicated that he had tabled Amendment 71A to insert the words,

“in the course of criminal proceedings”.

The amendment amends the proposed new Section 288ZA(2) to do this. We believe that our amendment inserting Section 288ZA(1) makes clear that the new appeal route only arises in the context of criminal proceedings, but I did listen to what the noble and learned Lord said. There may be some ambiguity or lack of sufficient clarity, and I will certainly want to look at this. I have looked at drafts at various times and I do accept that it is sometimes difficult when you are trying to import things into a different Act to make sure that it is right. I will look at the particular point that he raised there.

With regard to the noble and learned Lord’s point about defining “criminal proceedings”, the term “criminal proceedings” is already used in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and we are therefore content that no definition is required. Indeed, inserting a definition just in relation to these particular provisions may inadvertently cast doubt on the meaning of the term when it is applied to other provisions of the 1995 Act. Therefore, to ensure consistency throughout the Act, we felt that particular amendment would not be necessary.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, asked whether there would be a compatibility issue if an Act of the Scottish Parliament was introduced by an MSP in breach of Article 6. It is important to point out that introducing legislation in itself does not change the law and would not be incompatible with the convention. It is only when the Bill is passed that the issue of a possible breach of Section 29 of the Scotland Act would arise. At that point, a challenge to an Act of the Scottish Parliament would be a devolution issue. However, I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, indicated that we had made it clear—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, read out from the letter that I sent to him last month—and it is certainly clear that it is the Government’s intention that issues that arise in respect of Acts of the Scottish Parliament over whether they are compatible or within competence, under Section 29 of the Scotland Act, should be treated as devolution issues. They should use the procedures that currently exist for devolution issues and should not go down a route for compatibility issues. Indeed, my concern was that you could have some parts going down a devolution issue and some going down a compatibility issue. That is certainly our intention; I will look carefully at these amendments as drafted to make sure that proper effect is given to that intention and that an unintended ambiguity has not arisen.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, also raised the question of time limits. The reason for the exception here was not without precedent—and I think that there was agreement generally that the time limits should be there. Section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that proceedings alleging that a public authority has acted unlawfully by virtue of Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act must be brought within a year of the alleged unlawful act. However, this time limit can be extended if the court or tribunal considers it equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

In a case reported last year, R (Cockburn) v the Secretary of State for Health, the court considered it equitable to extend the time limit under Section 7(5) because the claim raised a matter of public importance, and it was not suggested that the delay had not caused hardship to the defendant or to third parties or was detrimental to good administration. This is to give discretion to the courts when it may be that this is how justice can be done in circumstances where no one is necessarily at fault and permission was not sought in the time limit specified in the amendment.

The other point related to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the Lord Advocate or Advocate-General being able to refer a matter to the Supreme Court. This is an issue which I have certainly given careful consideration to, and I readily accept that there are good arguments on both sides. There is the argument, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, that a lot of cases might be backing up when one decision is needed to resolve a whole host of cases. On the other hand, as I indicated when I spoke earlier, the advantage of the trial having been completed, and the Supreme Court having the advantage of the case having been given consideration by the High Court of Justiciary, is something that is of importance. However, I will reflect again on that. I have done so many times, and there are important issues here.

UK: Union

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the fact that, as was announced yesterday, there will be a Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons. It is important to point out that the panel, which will be chaired by Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of the House, comprises six independent, non-partisan experts. There is no question over party balance in this. With regard to the consequences for the House of Lords, I am conscious that, although a Scot, I am a Peer of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Would the Government support a broad-based British organised public discussion of the United Kingdom, in the manner of the Scottish convention, to help inform the debate that should lead to the decision on whether to dismember the United Kingdom? Is it not critically important that people’s opinions are sought not just in a snap decision but having had an extensive discussion in which they can all be involved?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think that there is any chance of it being a snap decision. I am very conscious that, in your Lordships’ House, many Lordships bring to bear from their respective experience examples of where Scotland has made a contribution as part of the United Kingdom to the common good of Scotland and of where Scotland has in turn made a valuable contribution to the United Kingdom. In the debates that take place on this I hope that people will be prepared to speak out and show that our shared values are of great importance, and that it would be a backward step to break up our United Kingdom.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

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

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

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

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

Elections: AV Referendum and Scottish Parliament

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Maclennan of Rogart

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the position, because I have had the benefit of seeing the letter from Mr Tom Aitchison, the board convener, and have not had to rely just on press reports. In that letter Mr Aitchison indicates that he would encourage the UK Government to amend the order for the Scottish Parliament elections to allow a combined poll to be held. Under the current rules, under the order of 2007, it is not possible for that to happen. However, he goes on to say:

“Allowing a formal combination of polls, for the referendum and parliamentary elections, would have many advantages both for the voter and the electoral administrators”.

We were already seized of that, and it will be addressed in the forthcoming legislation to pave the way for the referendum and the alternative vote. I would only add that the noble Lord—whom I welcome to this House, having served with him in the other place—whipped the Scotland Act, which makes provision for the Scottish election polls to be combined with a poll for another election. It does not allow them to be combined with a poll for a referendum, but that is what the forthcoming legislation will seek to do.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, has my noble friend had an opportunity to consider the possible coincidence in timing of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the general election to the United Kingdom Parliament in 1915? Would that require some alteration of our legislation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend meant 2015—1915 is beyond my abilities. He makes a very important point. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already written to the First Minister, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, the other political leaders in Scotland, the Electoral Commission and election administrators to say that he is prepared to discuss this issue with them. I can assure my noble friend and the House that my right honourable friend will listen constructively to what they have to say on the coincidence of elections, as a result of fixed-term Parliaments, in 2015 and every 20 years thereafter.