Scotland: European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 14th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This House debated the vital issues of devolution over a number of hours and days during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill. I pay tribute to noble Lords on all sides of the House for interrogating the Government on the issues with care and a wealth of knowledge. This House agreed a package of amendments to be sent back to the other place for their careful consideration. It is, frankly, remarkable that the Government provided less than 20 minutes for the elected House to debate the proposals in front of them on issues as fundamental to the union as devolution and the future of the Northern Irish border.

When this House gave the Bill its Third Reading, we expressed our regret at the absence of a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament and our hope that the UK Government would convene cross-party talks with the Welsh and Scottish Governments to look at ways forward. We are informed that requests for such talks, including by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, have been declined. This is, at the very least, disappointing.

The Government did not give enough thought to devolution in their drafting of the Bill, as in many other areas, and brought forward a flawed piece of legislation. The Government’s own Ministers conceded this point. A great deal of time and debate went into trying to address problems which are in part of the Government’s own making. It is unreasonable, at the next stage of that process, to claim that there is no time left for the other place to have a full debate on the new Clause 11 that it was promised.

We have repeatedly asked the Government to think more carefully about the devolution settlements, and the place they have in upholding our union and shaping the future of the Brexit negotiations. Are the Government actively considering Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s calls for the Joint Ministerial Committee to be put on a statutory footing, and have the minutes of its meetings published? We have a situation and there has to be a discussion, agreement and consensus, and I hope that the Minister can provide some hope in that quarter.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am not sure whether to thank him for the name check, which was a fairly broad interpretation of a somewhat more complex legal point. However, clearly, the Statement was made in the other place in response to the failure to have an adequate debate on the Lords amendments and following on, too, from the stunt of the SNP walking out yesterday. However, anyone with even a limited knowledge of Scottish politics knows that the SNP is a grand master at cranking up the grievance machine. Can the Minister therefore say why the Government gave them a gift-wrapped grievance to exploit?

We must also ask about the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Let us recall that he promised the House of Commons that amendments to Clause 11—which was, by that stage, completely discredited—would be tabled in the House of Commons on Report. That did not happen. I think there was some forbearance, when the Bill came to this House, because we took the view that, if time was needed to get these amendments right, then time should be taken. Indeed, we had good debates in Committee and on Report and even some further debate at Third Reading. But that was done on the expectation that Scotland’s elected Members, not just the SNP Members but those from the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats—and indeed Welsh and Northern Ireland Members, because it affects their constituents too—would have a proper and adequate opportunity to look at these amendments. They are a total recasting of the devolved situation post Brexit and the Government must really answer why they did not arrange the timetable in such a way as to allow that to happen. We are entitled to ask whether the Secretary of State for Scotland made representations for the timetable to be arranged in such a way for there to be adequate debate. If he did not, he was derelict in his duty and, if he did, I ask the Minister what conclusions can we draw about the weight he carries within government in as much as these representations were overlooked?

If one goes to the substance of the Statement, it says that:

“While the devolution settlements did not predict EU exit, they did explicitly provide that, in situations of disagreement, the United Kingdom Parliament may be required to legislate without the consent of the devolved legislatures”.


It is of course the case that, legally, Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998,

“does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”.

That is a statement of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Section 28(8) goes on to state:

“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.


As the Supreme Court found in the Miller case, it is a convention and, therefore, it is a perfectly legal position that the United Kingdom Parliament can legislate. Can the Minister indicate—it may be that he has not had time to look back at exactly what Lord Sewel said—whether Lord Sewel explicitly said, as was claimed in the Statement, that in some way this would be used as a form of dispute or disagreement resolution? I would quite like to know where this explicit reference to that came from.

We know that this particular Bill is a forerunner to agreeing frameworks. The principles of the frameworks for the United Kingdom were agreed by all parties at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations back in October. Can the Minister indicate what steps have been taken to put some meat on to the frame of these frameworks? Has the position that has been taken by the Scottish Government—indeed the Scottish Parliament—in any way hampered these discussions in recent weeks, both at official level and at ministerial level?

For my final point I just return to the issue of dispute resolution because, if we are going down the road towards UK frameworks, it is important that we have a better form of dispute resolution than taking the sledgehammer to what has happened in the meantime. We want to know what thought has been given by the United Kingdom Government, in discussion with the devolved Administrations, to ensure that there is far better dispute resolution than we have had to date.

Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I add my condolences to those of the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

I welcome the proposed changes and the opportunity taken in the Section 104 order to extend the categories where a mandatory fatal accident inquiry is carried out. The Minister will be aware that there has been concern for some time because the bodies of service personnel who are killed not in the circumstances he described but in foreign parts are generally repatriated to England, and therefore the jurisdiction has been an English jurisdiction, albeit that the families of the servicemen involved may well be in Scotland. Concern has been expressed about this and I know that efforts have been made to resolve it. I have lost track of whether any progress has been made. Will the Minister take this opportunity to indicate what the position is?

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my condolences to those expressed to the family of Lance Corporal Joe Spencer. It befits this House that such condolences are offered.

I thank the Minister for the usual clarity with which he explained the order, which we welcome. The legislation makes much-needed changes to update and improve the system of FAIs. These are tragic cases and are incredibly difficult for the families affected. It is right that we should do everything we can to establish what happened to their loved one, and to make sure that lessons are learned for the future.

The changes made by the 2016 Act go some way to improve the system. The Cullen review made its recommendations seven years ago now, so it is welcome that we have reached this point of action. There has been a wait to see this system updated. This order allows the 2016 Act to be implemented in full, so we are happy to lend it our support. As has been mentioned, particularly welcome are the provisions on the death of military service personnel. This issue has been made painfully resonant in the past few weeks by the tragic death of Lance Corporal Spencer. We again send our thoughts and condolences to his family and friends.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for the specific, experienced point of view he brought to this brief debate. I echo the words of the Minister that this UK Parliament stands ready, as I think it always has, to make devolution work not only in Scotland but in the other devolved Assemblies in the country.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I can understand where my noble friend Lord Faulkner is coming from. Along with the details that have been announced there is the extra factor of security, and I would have thought that that would justify a sympathetic approach from the Government. However, I cannot get away from the reality that devolution is devolution, and for us to try to lay down the conduct of the Scottish Government in relation to the British Transport Police, much as we would like to go up against this proposal of devolution, is wrong. I know where he is coming from and I sympathise with him. He has put a terrific case but, fortunately or unfortunately, it falters on the issue of devolution.

Amendment 43 is in the name of myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson. What we are trying to do is influence not only the UK Government but the Scottish Government. The amendment would provide for the establishment of a joint board that would examine the transfer, implementation and operation of the devolution of the British Transport Police. I understand that the full integration of the BTP into Scotland would take around three years. During those three years there are bound to be issues that arise, possibly security in particular. In this amendment, the joint board, or whatever it would be called, would report back to the Scottish and UK Governments. It would not interfere or try to influence what the Scottish Government were doing except in the way of good advice, so the principle of devolution would be protected. I do not like to use the expression “holding feet to the fire”; it smacks of violence and I am dead set against violence.

The amendment would establish a joint board to oversee this specific aspect of the devolution settlement, with the requirement to report back to the UK and Scottish Parliaments about the transfer, implementation and operation of proceedings, with particular reference to security issues. It is a response to the wide-ranging debate that we had in Committee, which attracted considerable attention and participation from across the House, about the devolution of the BTP.

I make it very clear, as we have done all through these proceedings, that the amendment is not intended to delay, postpone or in any way alter the timetable of the devolution of the BTP. In keeping with the nature of devolution, once these powers have been devolved, it is up to the Scottish Parliament to determine the future of the BTP. I am honestly making it plain that we have no intention of forcing a vote on that. We are not into gesture politics.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The whole thing is a gesture.

[Lord McAvoy]

However, let me deal with those who are. Earlier, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, shared with the House a conversation that he alleges he had with the Labour Whips’ Office. I do not know whether it is true, but in my 23 years in the House of Commons conversations with the usual channels and with Whips were sacrosanct. But seeing as how the noble and learned Lord has seen fit to venture into this territory, I shall share, in further defence of our strategy of trying to influence not only the UK Government but the Scottish Government, a statement from the noble and learned Lord to myself at the Bar, which I would not normally share, in which he indicated that the Liberals were going to use the vote on the Crown Estate for election leaflets in the islands. So here we are—the Scotland Bill is reduced to a political gambit for cheap political point-scoring. [Laughter.] The noble Lords may laugh and scoff, but they are the only ones who are doing so. Therefore we are taking the honourable position of trying to influence, not just engaging in gesture politics and staging votes for cheap political points, and we hope that we have influenced the Government—we will see what their response is—and the Scottish Government as well.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, this group comprises a number of amendments relating to renewable energy. The background is not only proposals for devolution but obviously must be seen against what the Government have done with regard to the Energy Bill, or least what they had done until this House took out the provision relating to the acceleration of the closure of the renewable obligation for onshore wind.

The first set of amendments, Amendments 65, 66, 68, 70, 71 and 72, are concerned with renewable heat incentive schemes. The Smith commission, which of course is holy writ, states at paragraph 41:

“There will be a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in designing renewables incentives and the strategic priorities set out in the Energy Strategy and Policy Statement to which OFGEM must have due regard. OFGEM will also lay its annual report and accounts before the Scottish Parliament and submit reports to, and appear before, committees of the Scottish Parliament”.

The initial amendments were intended to incorporate references to the renewable heat incentive schemes, whereas the clause as it stands relates only to renewable electricity incentive schemes. I was grateful to the Minister for writing to me on 1 December last to say that he did not think that this set of amendments was necessary. He indicated that heat was,

“not covered by any of the reservations in the Scotland Act 1998, and so should be treated as already devolved”.

He went on to say that, with specific regard to the renewable heat incentive,

“the Scottish Government already has a formal consultative role on both the domestic and non-domestic RHI schemes. Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008 states that for regulatory changes to RHI schemes, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change”,

had certain obligations relating to the,

“competence of the Scottish Parliament”,

and the “consent of Scottish Ministers” but, where there was not a competence within the Scottish Parliament, he had a consultation requirement on Scottish Ministers. Having received the Minister’s letter, I decided that it was still better to leave these amendments in so that we could have on the record why renewable heat incentives were not included. I know that their omission has caused some concerns in the industry, but this makes it clear that there is nothing to stop the Smith commission recommendation being given full effect in that regard.

There is, however, an important issue with regard to Amendment 68B. On how many occasions in the course of our debates have we heard the Minister pray in aid, “This is what the Smith commission says and this is what we are delivering”? I am sure that the Smith commission was never intended to be a straitjacket, but that is sometimes how it appears. I shall repeat:

“There is to be a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in designing renewables incentives and the strategic priorities set out in the Energy Strategy and Policy Statement to which OFGEM must have due regard”.

But look at what is in the Bill. It states in Clause 58:

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before—

(a) establishing a renewable electricity incentive scheme that applies in Scotland, or

(b) amending such a scheme as it relates to Scotland”.

Let us turn to the next two new subsections:

“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to amendments that appear to the Secretary of State to be minor or made only for technical or administrative reasons”.

I am actually prepared to live with that. It is probably perfectly reasonable provided that not too wide an interpretation is made of “technical or administrative reasons”. But new subsection (3) goes on to say:

“(3) Subsection (1) does not require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers about any levy in connection with a renewable electricity incentive scheme”.

Where in the Smith commission is that exception made? We have heard how important it is that we should stick rigidly to the commission, yet it does not make the exception that the Government seek to import into this provision.

Moreover, the Command Paper which was published almost exactly a year ago stated specifically that, in implementing paragraph 41 of the Smith commission agreement, a clause would be included in the Scotland Bill to,

“establish a broad duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Government on the design of new incentives to support renewable electricity generation, or the re-design of the existing incentive schemes … The duty will arise where the new incentive would apply in Scotland, or any re-design would affect the way an incentive operates in Scotland. It will apply to incentives that are both statutory and non-statutory in nature”.

If that had been translated into the legislation, it probably would have been fine. The paper was clear that the reference to existing incentive schemes included the renewables obligation and contracts for difference. There were no exemptions, yet exemptions have been added. The Government have to explain to the House why they are departing in a very material way from the recommendations of the Smith commission. Quite clearly, any levy in connection with the renewable electricity incentive scheme could put a coach and horses through what is given by new Section 90C(1), to be inserted into the Scotland Act 1998 under Clause 58. The Government may have a guilty conscience because they sought to bring about the early closure of the renewable obligation in relation to onshore wind and solar panels with precious little, if any, prior consultation with Scottish Ministers. Therefore, they are trying to cover their tracks by this rather niggardly exclusion that they have sought to put in. The Minister owes it to the House to explain why he has driven a coach and horses through that new subsection.

Again, I wrote to the Minister and asked about the consultation with Scottish Ministers. On 21 December, he helpfully responded saying that,

“similarly to the position on the Renewables Heat Incentive, we have not included a requirement to consult Scottish Ministers on the Strategy and Policy Statement … as the Energy Act 2013 already gives Scottish Ministers a clear formal consultative role in the development of the SPS. The process of designing the SPS requires two rounds of consultations where Scottish Ministers can provide their views on the draft document before it is designated. As legislation already exists to address paragraph 41 of the Smith Commission Agreement, no additional provisions have been included in the Scotland Bill”.

It provides us with a rather unusual situation. The Government are saying that something that was already in existence pre the Smith commission is being used to fulfil the recommendation of the Smith commission.

We must assume that the Smith commission was fully aware of what the pre-commission legislative position was because of things such as the British Transport Police. We have been assured that it knew all the implications of what was being proposed. We must assume that it knew the position under the Energy Act 2013.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am curious about things and about systems. Was there not any report back from the Liberal representatives on the Smith commission to the noble and learned Lord’s party?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not remember the precise detail of what went in when they came forward with this proposal but I presume—I give credit to those who were on the Smith commission, including the noble Lord’s own party members—that they did not seek to make a recommendation and that it already existed. I hope that the noble Lord would give due credit to the other members of the commission—the Labour members—that they would not have signed up to something that was already there. That is why I want the Minister to explain why he thinks that the Government’s interpretation of that recommendation is satisfied by something that was already in place. Can we not reasonably assume that those who were engaged in this were looking for something more? Indeed, Scottish Renewables is not satisfied that the legislation is sufficient. In an email to me, it said:

“If this recommendation is not to be carried forward through the Scotland Bill, we would like clarification about how any new or improved mechanism will be formalised outside of the primary legislation”.

We have to get some indication from the Government as to what more they are doing than what was already in place before the Smith commission sat.

I fully accept that Amendment 73A goes well beyond the Smith commission, so that probably bottoms it out before I even open my mouth. But there is an important point here as well. When the Smith commission was deliberating, it did not know that several months later the Government would pull the rug from under the onshore wind industry, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, by bringing forward the date of closure of the renewables obligation. We are entitled to speculate that, if the Smith commission had deliberated after the announcement to accelerate the closure of the renewable obligation for onshore wind and solar, it may well have incorporated something along the lines of what we propose in Amendment 73A.

Amendment 73A says that:

“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish proposals to transfer to the Scottish Ministers powers on the awarding of contracts under Contracts for Difference and the setting of electricity feed-in tariffs in respect of electricity generation from renewable sources in Scotland”.

This is quite a major step, but it is very much within the Government’s ability to shape what kind of scheme they would bring forward. We propose this because there are a number of different ways of doing it. There could be a full set of powers through a suitable adaptation of the Energy Act 2013; the Government may wish to limit it to onshore wind to encourage electricity generation by onshore wind; or it could be done by an intergovernmental agreement on budget limits and a restriction on the power to set the strike price.

Scotland: Constitutional Settlement

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I entirely agree with my noble friend on that need. The best way forward is to have an enduring union, to which I am certainly committed. The proposals in the White Paper which the Government produced at the end of January give effect to the agreement reached under the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. Not to have acknowledged and fulfilled the commitment given to the electorate would have been more damaging to the union. I have taken part in numerous debates in your Lordships’ House where noble Lords from all sides have called for a constitutional convention. That may well be the way forward after the election.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the noble and learned Lord’s further commitment to the Smith commission’s proposals for devolution. If elected in May, the Labour Government will be committed to including the home rule Bill in their first Queen’s Speech and introducing it in their first 100 days. The Smith commission also expressed a strong desire for further devolution within Scotland. Do the Government have any proposals for ideas at this stage to ensure that devolution does not stop at the Scottish Parliament but goes further through Scottish public life?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s commitment on behalf of his party. It is important to say that all three United Kingdom parties have undertaken to make that commitment in their respective manifestoes. I also share the noble Lord’s view that devolution should not stop at Edinburgh, not least because in the constituency which I used to represent, there is a very strong view that there should be devolution within Scotland. Most of the powers to do that rest with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but in public debate we should be making that point very clearly because we have had considerable centralisation under the present SNP Administration.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this draft order will devolve competence to the Scottish Parliament so that it can enact legislation about certain safety measures in relation to all dedicated school transport in Scotland. I will give the Committee a brief explanation of how the draft order achieves this and why it is felt to be an appropriate and sensible use of the powers under the Scotland Act 1998.

The draft order is made under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 30(2) provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 or Schedule 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, will recall that we debated a similar order on the Floor of the House last week.

The draft order will amend Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to make an exception to the road transport reservation in Section E1 of Schedule 5 to that Act. The amendment will devolve power to the Scottish Parliament to legislate in relation to the regulation of the description of motor vehicles, by reference to their construction and equipment, which are used to transport pupils and students in Scotland to and from places where they receive education or training, such as schools and colleges.

There is an ongoing petition before the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee that calls for provision to be made to ensure that every school bus in Scotland is installed with three-point seatbelts for every school child passenger and to ensure that proper regard is given to the safety needs of the children. Although it is the Scottish Government’s current position that the specific terms of dedicated school bus contracts are matters for individual local authorities, in an approach consistent with the petition I have just mentioned, Scottish Ministers have indicated that they intend to introduce legislation with the aim of ensuring that it becomes a requirement for seatbelts to be installed on all dedicated school transport in Scotland. This order will confer legislative competence on the Scottish Parliament to allow them to do so.

Once again, the order demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope the Committee will agree that this order is a reasonable use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998. The draft order has passed Committee stage in the Scottish Parliament and we expect that Parliament to conclude its scrutiny by 19 March 2015. The other place is expected to consider this draft order in two weeks’ time. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his staff for making sure that I was kept informed. He mentioned last week’s debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps in future he should consider a joint invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to come along and liven up the proceedings. That would probably put the Minister in the position that he would expect—and get—the Labour Party to ride to his rescue, as we did last week.

The Minister is absolutely right: this is continuing support for the devolution settlement, which I am glad the current Government are continuing. He has outlined it. There is no need to go over it again. We support the order.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.

Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the main purpose of the order is to give full effect to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act, and to make provision where the Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative competence to do so.

The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 and makes necessary or expedient legislative changes in consequence of the 2014 Act. It is quite technical in nature. It maintains the status quo and ensures that courts in Scotland retain their specific powers in relation to devolved and reserved matters.

To provide noble Lords with some background, the 2014 Act implements the majority of the recommendations of the Scottish civil courts review of 2009, which was an independent review chaired by Lord Gill. As the Committee may know, Lord Gill was at the time of the review the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland and is now the current Lord President of the Court of Session.

The 2014 Act is intended to make the civil justice system in Scotland more efficient, with most of that Act focusing on a restructure of the civil courts system in Scotland. The 2014 Act makes some additional provisions relating to criminal matters.

From 1 April this year, the functions of the Scottish Tribunals Service will be transferred to the Scottish Court Service as a result of provision within the 2014 Act, and that Act will rename the Scottish Court Service the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It is intended that this transfer will protect the independence of the administration of devolved tribunals by separating it from the Scottish Government. It will also create a joint independent administration for both courts and tribunals, with one board chaired by the Lord President as head of the judiciary for both courts and tribunals.

The Pensions Appeal Tribunal for Scotland, or PATS, was established under the Schedule to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943. While pensions are a reserved matter, PATS is currently administered by the Scottish Tribunals Service, since the non-statutory function of providing administrative support was executively devolved to the Scottish Ministers by the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999. The order before us transfers the administration of PATS from Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.

Section 2 of the 2014 Act updates existing powers to alter sheriffdoms and sheriff court districts in Sections 2(1) and 3(2) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The order consolidates and re-enacts the compensation provisions in those sections and permits the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to pay compensation for loss of office or loss or diminution of emoluments in consequence of an order made under Section 2 of the 2014 Act.

Currently, the Court of Session may make rules to regulate procedure and fees in both the Court of Session and the sheriff court, and it is important that the Court of Session still has this ability both for reserved matters and those which are devolved. The principal powers under which these rules are made are contained within the Court of Session Act 1988 and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. As powers which were conferred on the court by pre-devolution statutes, these rule-making powers cover both reserved and devolved matters. This means that the court has been able to make special rules governing practice and procedure in relation to reserved areas of the law such as immigration, financial services and terrorism.

The court’s rule-making powers are now to be contained in the 2014 Act, but, because of the current legislative competence arrangements, that Act can provide the rule-making power only for matters which are devolved. Accordingly, the order provides that these powers may be used to make provision which relates to a reserved matter, or which modifies the law on reserved matters; that is, provision modifying existing special rules relating to reserved matters. This preserves the pre-existing ability of the court to regulate practice and procedure regardless of whether the subject matter of the proceedings in question is devolved or reserved.

While the 2014 Act provides for the Lord President of the Court of Session to direct certain categories of sheriff court case as suitable to be dealt with by specialist judiciary, and for the Lord President or the sheriff principal of a sheriffdom to be able to designate particular members of the sheriff court judiciary as specialists in one or more areas, the order provides for these powers to be exercisable in relation to categories of case which relate to reserved matters.

Similarly, while the 2014 Act inserts new sections into the Court of Session Act 1988 to include the application of a second appeals test applying to applications for review of decisions of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland, the order extends these provisions to apply to the UK Upper Tribunal.

The 2014 Act provides that civil proceedings which a sheriff has competence to deal with, and in which orders of value are sought of an aggregate value which does not exceed £100,000, may be brought only in the sheriff court. However, this order prevents the 2014 Act applying to proceedings for the winding-up of a company, with the consequence that such proceedings will remain competent in the Court of Session regardless of any order for value sought.

Finally, the order makes consequential modifications to existing UK legislation. For example, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 are each amended to reflect the abolition of the office of stipendiary magistrate and the introduction of new judicial offices of summary sheriff and part-time summary sheriff in the 2014 Act.

A further example of the consequential modifications made by the order is that, as the 2014 Act has repealed several pieces of legislation in so far as Scots law is concerned, it replicates these repeals for the rest of the UK, thus tidying up the UK statute book. A specific example of this is the repeal of the Judicial Offices (Salaries, etc.) Act 1952 by the 2014 Act. This order replicates those repeals for the rest of the UK.

I consider this order to be a sensible use of the powers under the Scotland Act 1998 and it once again demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to ensure that the devolution settlement works. I therefore commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

Again, I place on the record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord and his staff for keeping me fully informed. It is with trepidation that I set foot in a Room when an order mentioning emoluments and compensation for legal people is being discussed. I am not that brave and prepared to tread that ground too much.

The noble and learned Lord says that is sensible devolution. It is a steady process that is working well and, on behalf of the Opposition, I fully endorse the order.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

This is not about what Gordon Brown says now. I cannot deal with a matter that Gordon Brown has no influence on other than within the referendum campaign. What was said in the Smith commission is agreed. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will send me these alleged quotes from Gordon Brown and let us move on. I remind the House that it was the disparaging remarks about Gordon Brown from the Benches opposite that inspired my defence of him. I will always come to his defence.

My noble friend Lord Reid is right: there may have been panic in London—I am not party to the higher echelons of power in London—but in the political parties in Scotland there was no panic. There were the strident calls of the SNP and its negative reaction to the referendum result, but that was it.

It is quite clear that the changes proposed in this order are welcome in Scotland. I am Scottish and involved in Scotland and I know that the order is welcome, and it is right that the Secretary of State has brought it forward. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, has done the House a service by raising these issues and allowing the Minister to respond to them. I make it absolutely clear—even if it invites further interventions—that we are fully behind this order. It reflects the Smith commission recommendations and the requests in Scotland that we should do this, and it is right that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to do so. It is also right and logical that the Scottish Parliament should be given the power to alter the franchise for local government elections.

I hope that we can move forward with consensus and use the consensus that exists in Scotland. Everyone knows that relations between the Labour Party and the Liberals have not always been consensual; the Conservative Party has certainly never been too consensual —especially when the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was Scottish Secretary, but I will not dwell on his guilty past—but the consensus is there. Without any doubt we fully support the order and wish to place that on record.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this robust and good natured debate. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may have got a lot of things out of his system about the vow and so on, but I suspect that, when we come back after the election, at the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill which will bring forward the clauses, we will have a reprise of his speech and there will be even more things for him to get his teeth into.

The debate has ranged widely, from Wolf Hall, to the Stone of Destiny, to the roll of honour of those who took part in supporting the no campaign during the referendum. A number of important points have been made—for example, the one put succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, in his intervention on my noble friend Lord Stephen. There are inconsistencies in the things you can do at 15, 16, 17 and 18. You can get married and join the Armed Forces at 16, but the ages for driving and buying cigarettes are different. The order is not about ironing out these inconsistencies. An overview of the differences is for another time and another place; it is not what this order is about.

There was a degree of consensus around your Lordships’ House on the merits of a constitutional convention or convocation, which included the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Maxton, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who pointed out that my own party supported it. It is not going to happen this side of the general election—it cannot practically be set up in the next three or four weeks—but, post-election, it is almost inevitable in some form. It will involve not only the political parties but civic communities, which is important, but that is for the other side of the election. It has happened before. In the debate we had in October after the referendum, views from different parts of the United Kingdom and from different parties were expressed about the importance of a constitutional convention.

One of the other themes was the thin end of the wedge, as it may be called. If voting at 16 happens in Scotland at the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections, it may well happen elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Tyler made clear why he hopes that will be the case. With due respect to noble Lords who do not wish to see votes at 16, I could take technical shelter behind the fact that the order does not legislate for votes at 16 in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament; rather it confers the powers for the Scottish Parliament to do so. However, given that the Scottish Parliament has made it clear that it will do so I shall not hide behind the order, but it is important to remember technically what it does.

.

My noble friend Lord Stephen made the point that we have debated important issues, including the vow. It is quite clear that my noble friend Lord Forsyth does not like how we got here. I voted no, in spite of the vow, not because of it. I voted no because I wanted Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom and I am delighted that we got the very convincing outcome to the referendum that we did. At the time, it was said that a vote for no was not a vote for no change. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, reflected that when he referred to the speech made by Mrs Margaret Curran in the other place. I will come on to the process in a moment.

Scotland: Draft Legislation

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for advance sight of his Statement. Today we again mark another milestone in the delivery of the vow made to the people of Scotland before the independence referendum. The timetable set out by my right honourable friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath during the referendum campaign has now been exceeded at every stage. A Command Paper on the process towards further powers appeared just 25 days after the referendum. The conclusion of the Smith commission and agreement by all five of Scotland’s political parties happened before St Andrew’s Day, just 10 weeks after the referendum. And today, ahead of schedule, as the Minister said, we see the draft clauses which will form the basis of the next Scotland Bill.

Before I turn to our response to the draft clauses and the Command Paper laid before the House today, I want to provide an absolute guarantee from these Benches. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has now made clear on a number of occasions, the powers agreed by the Smith commission will be delivered, and the next Labour Government will include a new Scotland Bill in our first Queen’s Speech. Labour created the Scottish Parliament in 1999, we supported more powers for the Parliament in 2012, and we will create a powerhouse Parliament with these new powers when we are in government.

Labour made it clear at the outset of the Smith commission process that we wanted a settlement that: first, respected the decisive outcome of the referendum, with a strong Scotland inside a UK where we pooled and shared risk; secondly, moved the maximum possible power from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament; and finally, did not make Scotland worse off. We are satisfied that the Smith commission delivered this outcome, and we can say with confidence that with these clauses we will be delivering home rule—the full powers Scotland needs.

As the Command Paper notes, the powers that these clauses will confer on the Scottish Parliament mean that it will control around 60% of spending in Scotland and retain around 40% of Scottish tax. This will make it the third most powerful devolved assembly in the OECD.

Before I turn to the detail of the clauses I wish to press the Minister—in a friendly way—on two areas that I hope he can address in his reply. The Command Paper makes explicit reference to the Barnett formula, and the agreement of all five parties during the Smith commission to the continuation of the formula. Can he provide just a bit more clarity about how the adjustment to the block grant will take place, and how discussions with the Scottish Government to agree this are progressing?

I also wish to press the Minister on an item on page 40 of the Command Paper, which reproduces the commitment in Smith that:

“MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax”.

Given the Chancellor’s comments at the Treasury Select Committee on Tuesday, can the Minister provide an absolute reassurance that this part of the Smith agreement will be respected, as it is not addressed in the Command Paper?

I now wish to turn to the detail and the precise powers that the clauses will confer, specifically over job creation, tax and social security. The clauses confer full power over income tax and a number of other taxes. We welcome the clarity provided by the Command Paper on the areas to be devolved.

We welcome the extension of powers over VAT going further than the Smith commission, but will the Minister explain why this change was made? On welfare, the clauses have the effect of transferring extensive new powers to the Scottish Parliament, in the region of £2.5 billion of welfare spending, in addition to the powers to create new benefits. Will the Minister confirm that the clauses as drafted respect the spirit and letter of the Smith agreement and allow the Scottish Government to create new benefits? Will he also explain the process that will now be taken forward to examine in more detail the consequential arrangements to adjust the Scottish block grant to reflect what will now be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

My honourable friend the Member for Glasgow East has already raised with the Secretary of State, and at Scottish Questions, our desire to see the job-creating powers of the Work Programme passed to Scotland at the earliest opportunity. It continues to be our view that this could be achieved using a Section 106 order to transfer responsibility to the Scottish Government immediately. This would reduce any uncertainty about the effect of continuing contracts in Scotland and would allow others to start to remedy what we regard as a failure of this Government’s Work Programme in Scotland, which sees only one in five people into a job. Will the Minister again consider bringing forward these powers now?

Finally, I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on the devolution of the Crown Estate. Will he clarify the process that will be followed to determine the transfer scheme, and how long this process might take? Will he also explain to the House how the Government will ensure that the Smith commission’s recommendation that the powers are further devolved to our island communities will be seen through? Many in our rural and island communities will want guarantees about the devolution of the Crown Estate and that powers will be passed to the islands, as both the UK and Scottish Governments promised during the referendum.

This is another milestone in Scotland’s home rule journey. Today, we on this side of the House welcome the Command Paper and the draft clauses. I am pleased that the Government have stated their commitment to further consultation with us and with Civic Scotland. There is still work to be done, and we commit to carry this work through if it is not concluded by the election and we form the next Government. On 18 September 2014, the clear will of the people of Scotland was expressed. The Smith agreement was the response to that call for change that we heard. Today, one thing is clear—Scotland will have a powerhouse Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his comments and for his welcome of these clauses, which, as I think he acknowledged, implement ahead of time the spirit and letter of the Smith commission agreement. It is also particularly welcome that he indicated that any future Labour Government would take these clauses forward in the Queen’s Speech. It is important to note that that has been said today by all three parties which signed the pledge prior to the referendum, so those who might try to cast doubt on the commitment are just mischief-making. There is a very clear commitment on the part of all the parties that that should be done.

The noble Lord asked about the Barnett formula and the adjustment to the block grant. There is within the Command Paper, in the section dealing with the fiscal framework, an indication as to how the block grant will develop. As tax will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, the amount of tax generated will be deducted from the block grant. The Smith commission said that there had to be some means of indexation; it was quite good at saying that, but did not actually set it out. However, this will be discussed. The Command Paper sets out how it is intended to be done with regard to the devolution of income tax agreed in the Scotland Act 2012. There clearly will have to be discussions and I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister, Mr John Swinney, has already indicated to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State a willingness on the part of the Scottish Government to engage in these discussions on the fiscal framework. Whereas at the moment roughly 90% of the Scottish Parliament’s funding comes from the Barnett formula, once the 2012 Act arrangements and the Smith proposals are implemented it will reduce to 35%.

The noble Lord also asked about MPs’ voting and accurately quoted the passage from the Smith commission. There clearly is an issue, which has been raised, not only in regard to tax but on a number of issues. He is aware that the Government published a Command Paper on 16 December that looks at those issues. It is very difficult sometimes to disentangle what is devolved and what is not devolved. I certainly remember when—I was the Minister responsible for higher education in Scotland—this Parliament passed laws in relation to tuition fees in England and Wales, which had very direct consequences for Scotland. Sometimes it is too simplistic to say that just because it is not devolved it does not have implications for Scotland. But there is a legitimate debate to be had.

The White Paper sets up a number of options that the Conservative Party put forward and ones that my own party put forward. I am sure that the noble Lord’s party has its own view on this. The important point to make on this, however, is that the proposals that we are discussing today stand alone. They are not contingent—as we have made abundantly clear on a number of occasions—on any arrangement or Motions that might come forward with regard to “English votes for English laws”, as it is sometimes referred to.

With regard to VAT, the noble Lord asked why we went beyond the Smith commission—as well as the first 10% of the standard rate we will also assign 2.5% of the reduced rate of VAT. The answer is that, obviously, if the reduced rate is 5% one cannot assign 10%. We did, however, think it was in keeping with the spirit that we would assign half the revenue that comes from the reduced rate of VAT.

The noble Lord asked about welfare and it is certainly our belief that we have honoured the spirit of the Smith commission. In this, he is quite right to say that some £2.5 billion of welfare spending will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. He asked about the detail of that, which is clearly considerable; none of us shies away from that. A ministerial working group on welfare has been established, which will be jointly chaired by my right honourable friend Mr David Mundell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and Mr Alex Neil, who is the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary with responsibilities in this area.

The noble Lord asked about the Work Programme. There have been discussions between his honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on this. We take the view that this is a package. The only measure we have accelerated is the Section 30 order in relation to votes for 16 and 17 year-olds because of the necessity of getting that on the statute book in good time for the 2016 election. The Government support the devolution of the Work Programme but it must be done in a way that reflects the fact that Smith will mean that we have a shared welfare and unemployment support system between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why we believe it has to be taken forward as a package. We do not know what the Scottish Government would do, and therefore do not think it would be right to take the risk that there would be no alternative programme or adequate transitional arrangements if we were to do it in very quick order. That is why we believe it should go forward as a package.

Finally, we have tried to devise a way in which we can devolve the Crown Estate, as the Smith commission recommended. I certainly share the noble Lord’s view that devolution does not stop in Edinburgh. He might expect me to say that, as I am a former parliamentary representative for the Northern Isles, which had very strong views on the Crown Estate. But, of course, further devolution is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is important, however, to put on record and remind the House that in his report the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, as well as talking about further powers to the Scottish Parliament, made the point that it was important that the Scottish Parliament looked at ways in which it could devolve further powers to Scotland’s many communities.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

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

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Monday 1st December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7 July now be considered. It might be helpful if I provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for an order to provide for any functions, so far as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers instead of by the Minister of the Crown.

Section 70(3)(a) of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 makes provision for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to set the cap on the amount that local authorities may spend on discretionary housing payments in a financial year. Pursuant to this, the actual cap is set out in the Discretionary Housing Payments (Grants) Order 2001.

This Section 63 order will transfer that function of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the Scottish Ministers instead. This will enable the Scottish Ministers, by order, to determine the limit on the total amount of expenditure that may be incurred by a Scottish local authority in making discretionary housing payments in the financial year 2014-15—that is, the current financial year—and onwards.

The order allows the Scottish Ministers to decide at which level the cap on discretionary housing payments, to be made by local authorities, is to be set. This will give local authorities and Scottish Ministers increased flexibility to support claimants with their housing costs in this way, as they deem appropriate. The order demonstrates the United Kingdom Government’s continued willingness and commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work.

As noble Lords will be aware, the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has been established to look at additional powers for the Scottish Parliament, and welfare issues may well be a significant part of its deliberations. However, these measures relate to the current financial year and I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is right that we take them forward at this time.

The order was considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee and was then passed without a Division in the Scottish Parliament on 20 August. It was considered, too, by the Delegated Legislation Committee in the other place on the 14th of this month and passed the following day. If your Lordships’ House approves this order, it will then proceed to the Privy Council. I therefore commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order to the Committee. I want also to express my usual thanks to the Minister’s staff for making sure that I was briefed. I would be at quite a loss without those briefings and I want to put on record that appreciation.

The Labour Party supports this order, made under the Scotland Act 1998. As the Minister said, it transfers certain functions of the Work and Pensions Secretary to Scottish Ministers. The transfer concerns the ability to cap the entire amount of expenditure that may be required by a local authority in awarding discretionary housing payments. This amendment to the Scotland Act is supported, as it demonstrates the delivery of further devolution pledges and grants control to Scottish Ministers over a payment that they requested. There is total agreement between the two Front Benches on that.

Scotland: Devolution Commission

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, any agreement must be sustainable for the longer term and fair to other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not want to be tempted down the road of second-guessing the Smith commission but I have made it very clear that the one principle that cannot be challenged is that the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. That principle must be upheld in any proposals that the commission comes forward with.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, we should not second-guess the Smith commission. The details will come. However, does he agree that all parties must enter the process in good faith and want a conclusion to the process that respects the result of the referendum, which was decisive, and is in the best interest of the people of Scotland?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, obviously everyone wants the outcome to be consistent with the referendum outcome and in the interests of the people of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, has already met the individual parties and said that he believes there is a will among them to reach agreement. I hope so and that it will be done in good faith.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord makes a very alert and important point. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is a directorate of the United Kingdom Government and would not automatically be transferred or shared in the event of a yes vote—which I hope will not happen. It is yet another example of one of the many institutions and agencies which operate on a Great Britain basis. I believe they operate successfully on that basis.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, Parliament should certainly not just be a rubber stamp for the Government. It is important to put on record that the process we are following here is set out in a law passed by Parliament. As I have indicated, this order has been debated in the House of Commons and approved by it. The fact that we are having a debate on it is very healthy and right and proper. The issue is, indeed, technical but nevertheless the debate has offered noble Lords an opportunity to express their views and to ask some very pertinent questions.

I certainly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which I think was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, that this is an example of the devolution settlement working. I think that it is a very good example of that. It is a technical issue but it shows a willingness to address practical issues in a practical way as and when they arise. Under the previous Administration, a certain amount of executive devolution was achieved on these issues through a Section 63 order. However, we now have a position whereby the Scottish Government have decided to establish a new food body for Scotland which will take on the roles and responsibilities of the UK-wide Food Standards Agency. Therefore, there is legislation going through the Scottish Parliament and a Bill has been drafted to sit within the limited sphere of legislative competence in relation to food and animal feed as set out in the 1998 Act. If this House passes the order—it will also need to be passed by the Scottish Parliament and then submitted to Her Majesty in Council—the Scottish Government intend to seek an amendment to widen the scope of the Bill to bring it in line with the scope of the existing food and animal feed law, as amended by this order. Therefore, the issue is of practical relevance given that the Bill is currently before the Scottish Parliament.

We have shown good will in negotiations and discussions with officials in the Scottish Government, my own department and other departments of the UK Government, not least Defra. That is a good practical example of the flexibility of the system. People refer to the status quo but I do not believe that there is any such thing as the status quo in relation to something which has evolved since 1 July 1999. The system has shown its ability to respond to different circumstances and I sincerely hope will continue to do so as we move forward. I again commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord McAvoy]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he care to comment on the limited ability to hold a Government to account due to the lack of sittings?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will have to check but I do not think that there are many, if, indeed, any, fewer sitting days this Session than in the previous Session. The number of sitting days is not far off that for the previous Session. No doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House would be able to give the exact figures. I do not think that it is unique for one House to sit when the other is not. That probably happened under the previous Government as well. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that the House will not sit in order to accommodate the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow in October. I do not welcome it as I have lost my excuse for not attending the conference. However, that does mean that the two Houses will be in step as regards when they are sitting, or not sitting in that case.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Monday 13th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what if any instructions they have given to each Government department to outline the impact that independence would have on its responsibilities in Scotland.

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

My Lords, the Government announced last year that they would carry out a detailed analysis of how Scotland and the rest of the UK contribute to and benefit from our partnership. This work will look at issues including the legal and constitutional set-up, the economy, wider policy issues such as the United Kingdom’s place in the world, defence, energy and welfare. This work is being carried out across government by policy experts in relevant areas.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will, like me, be confident that the overwhelming body of evidence supplied by government Ministers and their departments will show that Scotland is far better off staying within the union. However, the Minister knows that we must be careful with how this is portrayed in Scotland. We do not want lecturing or hectoring. I ask the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that government Ministers produce and present these facts in such a way that they do not alienate opinion in Scotland.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I very much agree with the initial comments of the noble Lord that Scotland is better within the UK and the UK is better with Scotland in it. I take his point, too, that it is important that the tone of the argument is set, and that it is positive, because there is a very positive case to make. However, pointing out some of the difficulties and challenges of independence does not mean that we are scaremongering or being negative. For example, the paper recently published on currency showed the disadvantages of a number of other options but also showed, beyond peradventure, that the best option of all is for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the SNP Government have claimed that there will be an increase in oil tax revenues post-independence. However, today we hear from the Centre for Public Policy for Regions that, contrary to what the Scottish SNP Government claim,

“to suggest some sort of new oil-tax revenue boom is about to emerge is not readily supported by the evidence”.

Does the Minister agree that the Scottish SNP Government need to be straight with the people of Scotland about the facts of the decision that they have been asked to make in 2014, so that we can get on with making the case for why Scotland is “better together”?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said about the importance of getting clear facts. He is right. I have seen the report published today by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, which makes the point about the uncertainty of the oil revenue. That uncertainty was underlined by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its report last week. We hear representatives of the Scottish Government telling us that we are on the cusp of another oil boom, but in the Cabinet paper that the Finance Secretary presented to the Scottish Government last year, he said that there is a,

“high degree of uncertainty around future North Sea revenues, reflecting considerable volatility in production and oil prices”.

It would be useful if they said in public what they say in private.

Dr David Livingstone

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, Dr David Livingstone was born in the town of Blantyre, which I had the honour and privilege to represent in the House of Commons. I join in the congratulations and thanks for all the celebrations planned. However, just a few years ago, the David Livingstone Centre in Blantyre, to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, referred, was in danger of closing, and it was South Lanarkshire Council which took the lead by involving the National Trust and other agencies so that the centre is now thriving again. Will the Minister join me in recognising the role of South Lanarkshire Council in this, particularly that of the leader, Councillor Edward McAvoy?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in this particular case, I believe that tributes to South Lanarkshire Council are deserved. I am aware that it took those steps. I think that I am right in saying that South Lanarkshire Council also plays an important role in the Scotland-Malawi Partnership. The University of Edinburgh calculated that up to £30 million in terms of expertise, time and money is contributed by those who are partners in the Scotland-Malawi Partnership.

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, I am perfectly happy with what the Scottish Parliament has legislated for and I am happy with the order. I should like to record my surprise at the strategy of going for a national police force in Scotland. It certainly has been the tradition in Scotland and across the whole of Britain as an island that policing should be organised locally. At home, I have maps which point out where the Alloa borough police force was: it had a chief constable, a sergeant and 10 constables. The tradition in Britain has been one of local policing.

I also acknowledge that in another part of English-speaking Europe, in Ireland, that it always has had national policing. After 1922, the Royal Irish Constabulary was replaced by two national forces—the RUC and the Garda Siochana. I want to record the fact that I am surprised by the strategy which apparently we want to have in Scotland, while I am very happy about us having a strategy in Scotland.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the Opposition support the measure, which as yet is another example of continuing devolution. I will not pay tribute to the Minister’s staff today because the last time I praised one of them, she mysteriously vanished and we have never seen her again. I do not know quite what he has done to her but I hope that she survives and makes a further appearance. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has mentioned the Scottish tradition of policing but we all have to recognise devolution and its implications. There was a consultation process that was very supportive and there did not seem to be any dissenting voices to the proposal. As the Minister rightly says, this is necessary after the 2012 Act. I cannot quite remember the context in which he mentioned torture, but I do not think that that has relevance on this.

There are comparisons with other nations and regions of the United Kingdom—we all understand the Northern Ireland one—but the Scottish Government have considerable powers and I can understand why there are reservations about having a national police force against a background of the police always being regionally organised. I was on the police and fire committee of Strathclyde regional council, which has a very good operation. The Minister mentioned that there were 14 abstentions in the Scottish Parliament—I presume that that was his own party, or did the Liberal Democrats vote against? I welcome the conversion and hope that we can have further co-operation like that.

Although the report is rightly subject to scrutiny and questioning, I want to develop a wee bit further the principle of disaffection. As a trade unionist, the word “disaffection” towards anything raises questions. It has been mentioned that some of the clarification that the Minister’s staff was able to pass on was on questions asked by the committee regarding who could be charged with disaffection. The initial reply seemed to indicate that only certain police could be charged with disaffection, but further clarification suggested that it could apply to a member of the public as well. Although I totally accept the Minister’s point that the Government do not envisage anyone being charged with this wrongly, unfairly, or whatever, he will know better than I do that legal history is full of people who have been prosecuted for offences for which at the time it was indicated they would not be prosecuted. So, I would like further clarification on disaffection because the police are different. It is acknowledged that they are not allowed to join trade unions. We have to have law and order and a legal system, so it is right that in case anybody tries to suborn or undermine the police in carrying out their duties, the defence should stay in.

I press the Minister to go a bit further in giving us assurances that no “innocent bystanders” who have had a pint too much on a Saturday night and preach treason—I have certainly done that myself a few times with pints of soda water and lime, I hasten to add—will be prosecuted. I seek assurances that ordinary members of the public, letting off steam—to use one of the expressions mentioned—will not be liberally prosecuted. I will leave it at that and hope that the Minister can give us some of those answers. That will reassure me.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank both my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for their contributions to the debate. I note the concerns of my noble friend with regard to the establishment of a national police force. He will be aware, as I indicated in opening, that our Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament voted against this. At one point the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, suggested that the 14 were Liberal Democrats—if only we had 14 Members in the Scottish Parliament. It was five Liberal Democrats and one Green who voted against and 14 Conservatives who abstained. The point is not about whether we support this policy intent, but that the Act was properly passed by the Scottish Parliament, and by a large majority. It is very consistent and in the spirit of the devolution settlement that this Parliament, through the use of a Section 104 order, should give effect to the intentions of the Scottish Parliament in areas where, because of its competence, it was not able to do so. It is in that spirit of making the devolution settlement work that we bring forward this order.

Scotland Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 7th February 2013 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the Scotland Act 2012 makes provision for a new route of appeal to the Supreme Court for compatibility issues. As noble Lords may recall from our debates on the Scotland Bill, compatibility issues are questions raised in Scottish criminal proceedings about European Convention on Human Rights issues and European Union law issues. These would previously have been devolution issues. The Scotland Act 2012 also makes provision for compatibility issues to be referred to the Supreme Court in certain circumstances.

The draft order is made under Section 42 of the 2012 Act, which allows for provision to be made that is consequential on the Scotland Act 2012. The draft order makes consequential amendments to legislation to ensure that compatibility issues are properly taken account of in the criminal justice system. The draft order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure because it makes amendments to an Act of the UK Parliament and an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and it is usual for such amendments to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The draft order amends the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 to enable criminal legal aid to be provided in relation to compatibility issues. Section 21 sets out the meaning of “criminal legal aid” for the purposes of the Act and this includes appeals and references to the Supreme Court of devolution issues raised in Scottish criminal proceedings. The draft order amends Section 21 so that criminal legal aid also includes appeals and references to the Supreme Court of compatibility issues.

Section 25AB of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 makes provision for criminal legal aid in connection with appeals and references to the Supreme Court in respect of devolution issues raised in Scottish criminal proceedings. The draft order amends Section 25AB so that it also makes provision for criminal legal aid in connection with references and appeals to the Supreme Court in respect of compatibility issues.

The draft order also amends the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Sections 132 to 140 of this Act make provision for the disclosure of information by the prosecutor where a person convicted of an offence seeks to appeal against any aspect of that conviction. The draft order amends Section 132 so that the definition of appellate proceedings includes an appeal to the Supreme Court against the determination of a compatibility issue. This ensures that appeals in respect of compatibility issues will be treated in the same way as appeals of devolution issues in criminal proceedings for the purpose of disclosure of information by the prosecutor. The draft order, if approved by each House of Parliament, will come into force on 22 April 2013—the same day as the other orders relating to compatibility issues.

For completeness, it is perhaps worth mentioning that other consequential amendments are needed in relation to compatibility issues, but as these amend secondary legislation they are subject to the negative resolution procedure and are included in the Scotland Act 2012 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2013. This order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which made no comment on it.

Transitional provision—that is, provisions that are not included in the draft order that we are debating—has been made in respect of compatibility issues to ensure that the provisions of the 2012 Act take effect as quickly as possible. This will prevent two different criminal appeals systems operating in Scotland for a lengthy period and allow the benefits of the new system to take effect as quickly as possible. The transitional order achieves its aim by converting devolution issues relating to ECHR or EU matters in criminal proceedings that have been raised before 22 April 2103 into compatibility issues. The proceedings will then continue under the new compatibility issue procedure.

The Scotland Act 2012 also makes amendments that impose a time limit of 28 days on applying for permission to appeal a compatibility issue or a devolution issue in criminal proceedings to the Supreme Court. An application for permission must be made within 28 days of the date of the High Court’s determination. If that permission is refused, an application to the Supreme Court for permission must be made within 28 days of the High Court’s refusal. Both limits may be extended by the respective courts, where this is equitable given all the circumstances.

Again, transitional provisions—not included in this order—have been made in respect of existing devolution cases in criminal cases where there is a right of appeal. The time limit of 28 days will apply from 22 April this year, as opposed to the date on which the devolution issue was determined or when permission to appeal was refused.

This will also apply to devolutions that are converted into compatibility issues. The Government have been working closely with the Scottish Government in making arrangements for the commencement of these provisions in the 2012 Act. The Scottish Government have also discussed the arrangements with various bodies including the Supreme Court, the Crown Office, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Society of Solicitor Advocates and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Both Governments are working together to publicise the transitional arrangements being made regarding compatibility issues and the changes made to the devolution issues by the Scotland Act 2012 so that practitioners are aware of these. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy]

First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his very full explanation. I also thank the noble and learned Lord’s staff for their courtesy and co-operation. They are so polite that they even supplied me with questions to ask him. He has, however, dealt with these issues in his speech.

We support this continuing step on the path of devolution: it is a fine example of how the two Parliaments can work to make sure that devolution is furthered in a moderate, non-contentious way. I hope that continues and that comparatively small issues such as this order and the way it has been implemented will play a part in indicating to the people of Scotland that, when it comes to a referendum, they should vote very firmly to stay within the United Kingdom. I have nothing further to add, unless the noble and learned Lord’s staff have supplied him with questions to ask me. I thank all concerned for their courtesy.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and endorse his sentiments about the importance of showing how the two Parliaments and two Governments can work together in the interests of the people of Scotland.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, this has been quite a lengthy debate. Nevertheless, the contributions have been very weighty; there is much knowledge and wisdom in this House. I would like to draw your Lordships’ House back to why we are here. We are here because the Scottish National Party won an electoral mandate at the previous Scottish parliamentary election. I do not like it but I accept the result. It has the right to support and advocate a referendum. We in the Labour Party support this order and hope to get into the debate as soon as possible, rather than be distracted by the many issues that have been raised today.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned an ad hoc organisation that advocated devolution. The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, and almost the whole of civic Scotland joined that ad hoc organisation. The difference between what happened then and what is happening now is that there was a broad consensus throughout Scotland about the need for a Scottish Parliament. The Labour Party supported that and, with the help of the Liberals and others, we brought about devolution and the installation of a Scottish Parliament. As soon as you devolve power to the Scottish Parliament, that power is there and it would be foolish to argue and quibble about this and that when it clearly has a mandate and the democratic right to do what they are doing, within generally accepted conventions.

A number of your Lordships have mentioned, quite rightly, the flaws within the deal that came about between the Prime Minister and the First Minister. We feel that one or two things could have been negotiated a bit more firmly. Having said that, the deal has been made, that is what we have, and we should move on from that. Nevertheless, we should note some points. For instance, the Scottish Affairs Committee quite rightly said in its report last week that decisions in the Scottish Parliament should be achieved by consensus and not simply through the use of the SNP’s majority. I keep hearing the phrase “gold standard”. The consensus that we achieved in the 1980s over the issue of the governance of Scotland should surely be the gold standard. I do not want to denigrate anyone’s personality on this, because that is a distraction that will only damage the cause of those of us who support the union.

There are a lot of issues, such as that of granting votes to 16 and 17 year-olds. The Scottish Parliament has the power to do that. There should be a debate about it, but it should not be an issue that prevents or distracts us from scrutinising this order.

On campaign finance and the wording of the question, the key phrase should be that the Scottish Government cannot be the referee and a player. Surely the Electoral Commission will act as an independent overseer of that process?

The point so ably made by my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan is that the Scottish people are not exactly backward at coming forward. I do not think we will be easily fooled; we will spot any chicanery or jiggery-pokery that may come from any party during this process. Sometimes, we in the political world can underestimate the acumen of the public, who keep an eye on politicians.

The wording of the question should be clear, unambiguous and thoroughly tested by the Electoral Commission. Like others, I should like to see the Scottish National Party commit itself to accepting the decision of the Electoral Commission vis-à-vis the wording. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords who mentioned this were right: if we have bitter disputes over this, the bitterness will continue and the result will not be regarded as legitimate. It is absolutely essential that we get legitimacy for that result, whatever it is, and that it should be accepted by all.

A number of your Lordships have rightly mentioned the quality of the contribution and amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. A number of my colleagues have stated they agree with much of his position. As I am a bit of a bureaucrat, one of the things I am concerned about is the practicality of the timeline. It is clear that, although October 2014 seems a long time away, the processes that need to be gone through before then are nevertheless considerable and time-consuming. If any of these timeline targets are not met, the process will be delayed, which would be dangerous. It will seem that obstruction by Westminster has caused the delay, which would be fatal to the cause of those of us who support the union.

Devolution means devolution. I am afraid that is sometimes hard to accept and something that we do not like. The Scottish people decided that they wanted devolution. I accept it, and it should be accepted.

My noble friend Lady Liddell made the point—far better than I am making it so far—by warning that we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by all the niggly points that have annoyed us. We have picked fault here and picked fault there. I do not say that the niggles, doubts and criticisms are not justified, but let us solve them; let us deal with them, get them out of the way and get on with campaigning. The people of Scotland are looking for a campaign where the issues are discussed, not individual personalities. We can then go to the real core of what would happen to Scotland if it separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not mean that as a negative point or to frighten the people of Scotland by saying that Scotland cannot or would not exist without the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course we could: we could be economically viable and we could be a separate state. But we should say to people that we do not want to be separate—to separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a union that has served us all well, especially in two world wars.

Again, I echo my noble friend Baroness Liddell. Let us get these issues dealt with. Yes, let us deal with them and debate them, but the sooner we get on to this campaign the better.

[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.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) (No. 2) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will provide the Grand Committee with a brief summary of what this order seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 30(2) and (4) of the Scotland Act 1998; in other words, it is a Section 30 order, like that which seems to have dominated much of the political discourse in Scotland over the past 12 months, but not the same one. Section 30(2) provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 or Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments, while Section 30(4) enables the modification of other enactments where that is considered necessary or expedient in connection with other provision made by the order.

This order will amend Section F1 in Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which I shall refer to as the social security reservation. It will also give certain pre-existing devolved enactments—those conferring functions on Scottish Ministers or local authorities—effect as if this new version of the social security reservation had been in place when those enactments were passed or made, rather than the version of the social security reservation that actually existed at that time.

The Welfare Reform Act 2012, which I will refer to as the 2012 Act, contains provision to abolish the discretionary Social Fund. It is the intention of the Department for Work and Pensions to commence Section 70 of the 2012 Act from 1 April 2013, subject to certain savings and transitional provisions. Thus, community care grants and crisis loans for living expenses will be abolished from that date.

Although no provision for any assistance to replace community care grants or crisis loans for living expenses is provided within the 2012 Act, it is the UK Government’s policy that the new assistance will be delivered in England using existing powers in the Local Government Act 2000 and that it will be for the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide on what new assistance will be provided in Scotland and Wales respectively.

However, the social security reservation means that the Social Fund and all its elements are reserved to the UK Parliament. Therefore, new arrangements cannot be legislated for, or indeed provided for, by the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Government within their existing competence.

This Section 30 order will provide a new exception to the social security reservation to widen the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament so that it can provide newly created assistance to those members of the community in Scotland who might previously have applied for a community care grant or crisis loan for living expenses. Payments made out of the Social Fund will remain reserved, as will other existing social security benefits.

Although in the future the Scottish Government may decide to legislate to provide new assistance to those members of the community through primary legislation, it is the current intention of the Scottish Government that local authorities should provide newly created assistance for an interim period of two years. To provide this assistance, those authorities will use their power under Section 20 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which is known as their power to advance well-being. However, Section 20 of that Act, as it was enacted by the Scottish Parliament, does not presently give local authorities a power in an area for which the Scottish Parliament could not legislate when the 2003 Act was passed. There may also be other Scottish ministerial or local authority functions that are relevant to the exercise of the new area of devolved competence that similarly need to be expanded. We therefore believe it expedient to modify any relevant devolved enactments made prior to this order to enable the Scottish Ministers and local authorities to use such functions to provide this new assistance. My Lords, this order makes that modification.

I assure noble Lords that funding is being transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Scottish Government to allow that this new assistance be provided. Based on figures provided by the Scottish Government, set-up funding of just over £2 million has been agreed between the two Governments. Agreement in principle has been reached and we expect the transfer of these set-up funds to be completed shortly.

Within the current spending review, the Department for Work and Pensions has been allocated £178.2 million for the discretionary Social Fund. This allocation will form the programme funding for the new provisions in England, Scotland and Wales, with £178.2 million per annum being apportioned nationally. In 2013-14, programme funding of just under £24 million and administrative funding of just over £5 million—which includes funding for processes that may be put in place locally to review individual awards of funding— will be transferred to the Scottish Government. In 2014-15, programme funding of the same amount and administrative funding of just over £4.5 million will be transferred. A settlement letter outlining the indicative allocation was issued to the Scottish Government on 6 August 2012.

This Section 30 order is necessary as a result of the 2012 Act and the UK Government’s policy that it is for the Scottish Government to decide what new assistance will be provided in Scotland following the commencement of Section 70 of the 2012 Act on 1 April 2013. This order demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that the Committee will agree that this order is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act. This draft order was debated in the House of Commons on 11 December and was subsequently approved on 12 December. The draft order was also debated in the Scottish Parliament on 11 December, where the Welfare Reform Committee resolved to recommend the draft order to the Scottish Parliament. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, once again I thank the Minister and his staff for the admirable help and support that they have given me in looking at this legislation. My admiration for the noble Lord’s organisational abilities is somewhat dented this afternoon because he was not able to get the order higher up the Order Paper. In addition, he does not seem to have arranged heating in this Room. I will move rapidly on.

This order is a result of the Calman commission set up by the Labour Government to look at further areas where devolution could be brought in. The Minister has explained it perfectly well and I have no intention of repeating all that. However, I have a couple of questions; perhaps, as an amateur at the Dispatch Box, I will ask the wrong questions but, as ever, I will try to work it out.

The noble Lord said, if I picked it up right, that £178.2 million was a proportionate share. Is that a Barnett-formula proportionate share? What is the connection to the money that has been spent in Scotland so far? Is there any relation in the Barnett formula calculation to the calculation of how much will be paid out? If there is a difference in one, it would therefore seem to be cash-limited. Is it that every case will be looked at, or that once the money is finished the allocation is finished? Does that mean that no more cases can be looked at?

We are in a rather fluid situation in Scottish political life at the moment because of the forthcoming referendum. Maybe my mother well named me “Thomas”—I do not know—but what guarantees are there that the cash transfer to the Scottish Government will be spent on these matters? In addition, is there any way that the Scottish Government can tamper with the money that has been allocated notionally—and hopefully practically—for local authorities in Scotland and not give them their full allocation? Local authorities in Scotland have quite justified concerns about how the Scottish Government allocate money to them. We dearly need to know whether there is any way, once the money is passed over to the Scottish Government, that we in Westminster have any avenue or platform with which to raise concerns. I may be chasing a hare that is not running, but if the Scottish Government do not provide all that money straight to their local authorities for the set-up costs, is there anything that we here can do about it? Were these safeguard issues discussed for the integrity of the money being spent for the purpose that we at Westminster are allocating it? Was there any mention of these two or three questions—on the finance, the proportion and how it is to be monitored, and safeguards to ensure that local authorities get all the money that is meant for them—during these discussions?

Forestry Commissioners (Climate Change Functions) (Scotland) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I will provide the Committee with a brief summary of what this order seeks to achieve. It is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for “necessary or expedient” changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament and subordinate legislation. This order is made in consequence of the Forestry Commissioners (Climate Change Functions) (Scotland) Order 2012, made by Scottish Ministers under Section 59 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. For convenience, I shall refer to this as the Section 59 order.

Scottish Ministers are keen to make full use of the national forest estate in Scotland for generating renewable energy. The national forest estate is land owned by the Scottish Government and put at the disposal of the Forestry Commission. While the commissioners have powers to enter into joint ventures in Scotland for the purpose of exercising their functions under the Forestry Act 1967, these functions do not expressly include the development of the renewable potential of the land put at their disposal by Scottish Ministers.

Section 59 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 enables Scottish Ministers to modify the functions of the forestry commissioners in or as regards Scotland where this is necessary or expedient in order to comply with their duties as regards emissions reductions or otherwise in relation to climate change. The Section 59 order amends the 1967 Act to place upon the forestry commissioners a new general duty to use land placed at their disposal by Scottish Ministers in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

However, the Section 59 order does not itself enable the forestry commissioners to use the National Forest Estate to generate electricity. The Scottish Government have indicated that because the forestry commissioners will have a duty to use land to contribute to the delivery of climate change targets, it would be expedient in consequence of this new duty for the commissioners to be able to use the national forest estate for renewable energy purposes.

This Section 104 order will modify the forestry commissioners’ functions under the 1967 Act in order to confer express powers on the commissioners to use the national forest estate for the purposes of generating and supplying electricity from renewable energy projects, thus developing the renewable energy potential of the land put at their disposal by Scottish Ministers. Of course, the generating and supplying of electricity from renewable energy projects is a reserved matter, hence the need for this order.

I can assure your Lordships that this Section 104 order will not affect the requirements under the Electricity Act 1989 with regard to consents. It will not exempt the forestry commissioners from the requirements of Part 1 of that Act.

This order is necessary or expedient in consequence of the Forestry Commissioners (Climate Change Functions) (Scotland) Order 2012 and demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope the Committee will agree that this order is a sensible use of the powers in the Scotland Act, and that the practical outcome is something to be welcomed.

I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister, who, as usual, has made his staff available for any advice and/or assistance. I have a slight regret about the noble and learned Lord’s ever so polite attitude because, being used to another place, I sometimes like a wee bit of aggression but I am still waiting for the Minister to show that quality.

Turning to the legislative context, where in Scotland did the push for this come from? Although I do not stay near a lot of forest, nevertheless it is quite a big issue in some parts of Scotland. Why was this initiative taken, and what was the background to it? The policy background mentions wind farms. That is not an uncontroversial issue. I was wondering how that came about.

I have always tended to suspect the reporting of consultations because it is usually in the eye of the beholder, who wants a particular result. What is the current position on the consultation? Is it completely finished or are there still ramifications because people are making complaints or expressing their support? Is it still an issue? In addition, it is stated that a number of the concerns that were expressed have been addressed. Does the Minister know the specific issues that were identified and then responded to? Can he give an indication of how the consultation was handled? Was it just an exercise from on high or was there a definite consultation?

Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is headed “Impact” and states:

“This instrument has no impact of a regulatory nature”,

and goes on to say that the,

“impact on the public sector is insignificant”.

The one thing missing from that is public opinion. If it was insignificant, that is fine, but if there was a reaction, it would be a crucial factor. I would like to know if there were any expressions of public opinion. Is that the reason why a full impact assessment was not produced?

Although paragraph 12 states that the:

“Forestry Commission Scotland publishes an Annual Report and Accounts which is laid before the Scottish Parliament”,

is that the scope of the accountability? I know about devolution, but is there any further scope for the Westminster Government to be consulted? In short, is the whole issue of accountability now devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Obviously this is a comparatively minor arrangement, but never the less it is right to ask questions here in your Lordships’ Chamber and thus subject the order to a bit of gentle scrutiny.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, speaking as a backwoodsman, I approve of giving explicit powers to one of the largest landowners in Scotland and thereby removing all the Forestry Commission land from the renewables area. I certainly approve of the widening of the geographic scope for renewables, especially as it takes the pressure off other areas that may be more beautiful and which are worth retaining in that context. The order considerably widens the already broad remit of the Forestry Commission, which is now far wider than its remit in 1919, which was to produce timber. The commission will now get involved with leisure, recreation, health, landscape management, footpaths, cycle paths, biodiversity, wood fuel and still, indeed, the production of timber. I support all forms of renewable energy, and especially hydro. I am pleased to see that two hydro schemes have already been identified. I would encourage the commissioners to have another look at small-scale hydro projects on the hill burns. I also suspect that they are bound to put up some wind turbines, or allow a partner to put them up.

My final point is particularly related to that. Once a site has been established, it is grid-connected pretty much for all time. It is hoped that the generating technology may well improve and something other than wind farms will come to take their place. The important point is that the sites themselves are grid-connected.

Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I hoped to welcome the fact that negotiations between the two Governments on the terms of the referendum would soon be complete—but it seems that they are not. Even at this late stage, it seems that the Minister is not able to give the answers that noble Lords sought. The Government should realise that they need to make sure that there is a clear process for extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, given that the law will need to be changed to allow this to happen. The UK and Scottish Governments need to set out as soon as possible the detail and timetable of how the legislation will be changed to ensure that all 16 year-olds are eligible to apply to have their names included on the electoral register. The time has long passed for the process to be concluded so that we can move on to a real debate on the future of Scotland.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will make clear what both Governments said last night. Following further discussions between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, further substantial progress was made towards an agreement. They are on track for full agreement but, as I indicated, there are still details to be sorted out. The position of both Governments is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but we are very hopeful that full agreement will be reached. As my noble friend said in his Question, and as the Prime Minister indicated in his speech to the Conservative Party conference today, he hopes to be able to reach full agreement with the First Minister next week.

I should make clear that there is no set franchise for referendums. Each referendum passed by these Houses of Parliament has had its franchise determined by the Bill setting up the referendum itself. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, to the Dispatch Box for, I think, his first time leading for the Opposition on Scottish matters, and I look forward to many more such times, not least—if we ever get there, as we hope to—on the Section 30 order. I entirely endorse his final comment that the sooner we can determine the process and get on with arguing the case as to why Scotland benefits from being in the United Kingdom and why the United Kingdom benefits from having Scotland in it, and hold up to scrutiny the rather threadbare arguments for independence put forward by the Scottish National Party, the better.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 22 June 2011 be considered. Perhaps I may provide the Committee with a brief explanation of what the order is intended to achieve. It is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord McAvoy]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

which is currently before the other place—

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

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in Scotland,

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

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

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

as amended by the Act that triggers this order.

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

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

My right honourable friend is advised that,

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

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, in the forlorn hope that, as I have not moved three previous amendments, the House will be a little tolerant of me for a couple of minutes, I would like to spend those two minutes moving an amendment about Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway. I have illustrated the arguments for Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway many times before, so I do not intend to repeat them and abuse the patience of the House.

Those areas have been together now for about 100 years. There are close connections and a bond between the historic Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, the Cambuslang community and the former mining area of Halfway. In 1975, there was an attempt by a previous Conservative Government to destroy the communities by moving them into the City of Glasgow. A more enlightened Tory Minister, Allan Stewart, and I got Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway out again. If one starts from the border with blocks of 75,000 or 76,000 people, as the Bill suggests, Cambuslang and Halfway could end up in the lower part of Scotland and Rutherglen could be in the northern part of Scotland; there would be only one way for Rutherglen to go and that would be with the City of Glasgow, which would mean the end of our parliamentary cohesion.

I hope a Liberal Minister replies because that would certainly make it plain to the people of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway that it is a Liberal Minister who is rejecting the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as a coalition Minister, I am more than delighted to reply to the noble Lord’s amendment, which would result in an exception for Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway so that they remained in a constituency which does not cross the boundaries of the South Lanarkshire Council area. The amendment in the Marshalled List brought back memories, as I recall my great aunt and uncle had a Halfway telephone number—I cannot remember the digits, but it was certainly Halfway exchange and, as a child, that always interested me as I wondered where it was halfway between.

I recognise the strength of the communities that the noble Lord used to represent in the other place but, as has been made clear on a number of occasions in Committee and on Report, the Bill as originally drafted had two named exceptions to the principle for a clear and tightly defined set of reasons. Both those exceptions involve remote locations and populations too small to be put in the parity target. The Bill now includes the Isle of Wight, following the vote in Committee on that. I do not think it is possible to argue that extreme geographical considerations apply in South Lanarkshire.

However, I have no doubt that when it comes to the Boundary Commission having regard to the circumstances and the community ties that link Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Halfway, it will be permissible under the rules for the Boundary Commission to take those ties into account and give such regard as it thinks fit to the fact that those communities have had historic links. I have no doubt that, under the public hearing arrangements for which the House voted yesterday, the noble Lord will—I have every certainty—make a very eloquent case when the opportunity for a public hearing comes, assuming that the Boundary Commission does not, in its original proposals, have Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Halfway together.

I think the noble Lord recognises that the case has not been made for an exception to be on the face of the Bill in this respect, but, of course, as I have indicated, community ties is an issue to which the Boundary Commission can have legitimate regard. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

Obviously, I do not wish the Minister any ill will but I certainly hope that his late auntie and uncle are on his mind tonight when he is trying to get to sleep if he is going to do this to Halfway. I certainly hope that they have a word with him. Halfway is so called because it is halfway between Glasgow and Hamilton—I offer that bit of information to the noble and learned Lord.

The areas I have referred to suffer from the fact that they have had a Labour Member of Parliament for 46 years, and that seems to be a problem; other areas seem to find the circumstances to enable them to get exemptions from the Government. However, I recognise the reality and the bigger picture here in the sense that we will be dealing with different countries in the next amendment. I fully accept that. However, I assure the Minister that, when it comes to the campaign, the fig-leaf of claiming to be a coalition Minister will not do the Liberal Party much good in Rutherglen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

I will speak very briefly on this amendment because I have spoken quite a few times about the Rutherglen area. There are two amendments in this group. One proposes that the three present constituencies contained within South Lanarkshire should be the three constituencies there. There would be a small addition in the sense that the southernmost part of South Lanarkshire council area is in another constituency. The three constituencies—East Kilbride, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, and Lanark and Hamilton East—all have around 76,000 to 77,000 electors. That is near enough the quota that we are talking about. I was prepared to make a number of points, but I have already made the point about that.

I will speak only for two or three minutes on this issue and say why we fear this boundary redistribution. If the boundary redistribution starts at the border with England, according to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there will be seven fewer seats in Scotland. That is a worry for us. However, a bigger worry for those in the Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway area is that if the boundary redistribution starts at the border with England and moves north, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, clearly said, they are heading for a situation where local communities do not matter. They will simply be blocks on a map. A few people have done an exercise for me—I have done it myself—by just moving blocks of 75,000 on a map, coming from the south of Scotland. It can go east or west. However, the danger for us in my local area is that a block of 75,000 stops at Cambuslang and Halfway. As for the next 75,000, the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen will almost certainly get put into a Glasgow parliamentary seat.

We have been a royal burgh since the year 1126 when King David I gave us a royal charter, renewed by Robert the Bruce; and we have the Robert the Bruce renewal charter in which he refers to his great-grandfather, King David I. We have had that tradition since 1126. I have already made reference to this, so I will mention it briefly. In 1973-74, the Heath Government put the towns of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway into Glasgow District. In 1994-95, we achieved success in getting back out of Glasgow and back into Lanarkshire. That is not hostility to Glasgow or to the people of Glasgow; there is no big barrier of the River Tyne or the River Tees. However, we believe in a smaller community and we believe that we have something special in Rutherglen. We have recovered and renewed our community roots since the advent of South Lanarkshire council and the formation of a parliamentary constituency that is entirely within Lanarkshire and nothing to do with Glasgow. This is a dagger in our heart, moving us back into a Glasgow parliamentary constituency, with ramifications, at a later stage, for any local government reformation, redistribution and formation of new boundaries. The push would then be for the town of Rutherglen to stay within the Glasgow local authority. That is a big, big issue in our local community.

There are the local Liberal Democrats. I know that I must seem obsessed about the Liberals, and I probably am, but too many Focus leaflets are pushed through the door, although they have dried up recently. We have a local Liberal Democrat party and a local Liberal Democrat personality that campaign with the slogan “Rutherglen for Rutherglonians”. Now we have a Liberal Democrat coalition with the Conservatives, which is a danger to Rutherglen. I am trying to expose the danger to my community of that redistribution. I hope that the Liberal influence there, that is supposed to support a separate Rutherglen, will end up supporting us in that fight. It is a very limited amendment. I do not see us spending much time on it, and I have cut it down a lot because I have spoken about it previously. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 83 would guarantee that there will always be three constituencies in the South Lanarkshire council area, irrespective of whether they respect the 5 per cent above or below the electoral parity rule. Amendment 84A requires a specific number of named areas to be included, including a constituency called Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which is the name of the constituency that the noble Lord had the privilege to represent over a number of years. These named areas are already contained in the South Lanarkshire council area and, if read together, Amendment 84A appears to be a more detailed requirement to specify that at least one of the constituencies of the three referred to in Amendment 83 should be called Rutherglen and Hamilton West, preserving that constituency as it currently stands—or one very similar to it.

I heard the noble Lord speak about this and have heard him speak about it on other occasions. I know Rutherglen and I know the pride that exists in it. There has always been that tension over whether it was part of Glasgow or not. But as the Committee is aware, the principle of the Bill is one of fairness, so that a vote across one part of the United Kingdom has one value. For something as important as one’s right to choose the Government of the day, I believe that equality and fairness are key principles. The two named exceptions to the principle in the Bill are there for a very clear and tightly defined set of reasons. Both have small populations and a very dispersed geography. Even with the wildest imagination, one could not say that South Lanarkshire fits into the pattern of being very remote and having a much dispersed geography. That is why distinctions are made there and not in the case of South Lanarkshire.

I have heard on more than one occasion in this Committee the noble Lord regret the fact, to put it mildly, that Hamilton, which itself has a long history, has been a divided place with regard to Boundary Commissions. At the moment it is divided east and west, but I recall an earlier boundary change that made Hamilton North and Bellshill and Hamilton South. It has been divided in other ways, too. Who knows—it is not for this House to be prescriptive of the Boundary Commission—it may even be that Hamilton comes together again as a result of these proposals. I am sure that would be greatly to the noble Lord’s satisfaction.

We are confident that in South Lanarkshire it will be possible for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to draw new boundaries, which will allow equality of votes among the constituencies within 5 per cent either side of the electoral quota and, at the same time, fit together logically and meaningfully for the electors in that area. This amendment would tie the commission’s hands unreasonably and, perhaps—almost inevitably—force it to produce a less coherent set of boundaries than otherwise would be the case. While I understand the motivation behind it, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McAvoy]

I have heard what the Minister said. It is not just about remoteness. I understand totally that remoteness is a criterion that can apply to other areas, but I have not mentioned remoteness because it does not apply here. It is community that I am arguing for in respect of my former constituency, because the community is such that after the damage done 30 years ago we have only begun to get it together again in the past five, 10 or 15 years. We are getting it back to the old Rutherglen, and we would be damaged if we got put in with Glasgow again. It was not on remoteness that I was arguing the case; it is about community. The Minister refers to the straitjacket into which the Boundary Commission would be put. There is no guarantee about any Boundary Commission, but it lessens our chances, because the whole essence of the Bill seems to be about blocks of 75,000 or 76,000, and that is a danger to us. It would have been remiss of me not to make the case for Rutherglen in this situation, and I had no hesitation in doing that. However, above all else I am a realist. I shall not push this to a vote and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It was not the 1986 legislation. Let me put it on the record that Orkney and Shetland is under present legislation outwith the purview of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. Orkney and Shetland is preserved as a Westminster constituency by virtue of the Scotland Act 1998, which was passed by the previous Labour Government. It was outstandingly passed as it was a very good piece of work. It was whipped through by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. It gives the constituency of Orkney and Shetland preserved status. It was not done by this party but by a Labour Government. I congratulate them on it. It seemed logical that the Western Isles should be treated in a similar way in this Bill.

[Lord McAvoy]

The Minister has forced me to break my self-denying ordinance about intervening on Ministers. However, he will recall that in a previous discussion about Orkney and Shetland both getting MSP seats he said that one day he would give us details of the deal he struck with the late Donald Dewar to get that. Who did he do this deal with to get preserved constituency status?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I did not do a deal with anyone with regard to this. I have just paid tribute to the party opposite which recognised the importance of Orkney and Shetland by giving them separate seats in the Scottish Parliament and preserving the Orkney and Shetland Westminster seat. I hope that noble Lords will think that it is not unreasonable that, given the similar circumstances of the Western Isles, they should be included.

There were some important contributions in this debate about the City of London. The amendment was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Jenkin, the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Davies of Stamford, and, very persuasively, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I think the important role that the City of London has in the history of this nation is well recognised across the Committee, as is the important financial contribution that the City makes.

As I have indicated, the primary concern of the Bill is to create more equal-sized constituencies, and that is best achieved by keeping exceptions to the minimum. As a result, the Government do not believe that the City of London should appear as an exception. While it is not for me to say what the Boundary Commission for England will do, I hope it might reassure noble Lords to know that the 25 wards in the City of London have fewer than 7,000 electors, which is smaller than some individual wards elsewhere in the country. I therefore suspect that it is unlikely that the City will be split between two constituencies. This is a very obvious case where the rules, particularly rule 5 about where special local ties would be broken by changes in constituencies, would be highly relevant in addressing the Boundary Commission.

The question was raised with regard to the historic nature of the City. The position, as I understand it, is that while Magna Carta protects certain privileges of the City of London, paragraph 628 of volume 12(1) of Halsbury’s Laws of England lists customs of the City that have been certified by the Recorder and recognised by the courts, but does not include anything on Parliament or constituencies. However, there is considerable history here and I would want to do better justice to this issue. I hope that I shall be able to write to the noble Baroness who raised this matter, addressing the point that she made concerning the history of the City as a parliamentary constituency, and I shall seek to do so before Report. As for the name of the constituency, again, that should be a matter for the Boundary Commission. However, I have no doubt that those who feel strongly about any proposal from the commission that affects the City of London will be able to make representations to it. I certainly recognise the importance of the name of the City of London, and we believe that this strikes the best balance between respecting the history of the nation’s communities, including the City of London, and providing equal weight to the votes of those who live in all our communities.

I turn to the question of Edinburgh—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In response to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has indicated that I might send him home happy. I hope that in the spirit of the remarks I am about to make he will still go to his Christmas retreat a happy man. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the amendment as drafted would not necessarily meet the point, but I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and other noble Lords who have supported him, some clear reassurance.

The amendment is unnecessary because in Schedule 10 to the Bill, on page 294—which I hope we will get to one day—it is stated at paragraph 6(2C) that under rule 47:

“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which … is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but … is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an arabic numeral), shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number (written as an arabic numeral) had been marked instead”.

I hope that that addresses the issue. If there is one X, it will be very clear.

The important point is that the returning officer has discretion to make a judgment as to whether a clear intention has been made. That is why two Xs would not demonstrate a clear intention. I believe that one X would demonstrate a clear intention and that is provided for in the rules.

[Lord McAvoy]

In the past, I have seen a cross on someone’s name, which has been interpreted as, “We don’t want this one, and I am ruling them out”. Perhaps the situation is not quite as clear as the noble and learned Lord genuinely thinks.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is a matter for the returning officers to determine ultimately whether they believe an intention has been indicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has invited me to give a description of the working of the Scottish Parliament voting system. I will resist that. I do not think that it is necessary. He came to be elected, I suspect, because more Labour members lost their first past the post seats than he had anticipated in the Lothian region. If he has any queries about the system, it is a system which of course he agreed in the constitutional convention. He was a member of the Government that brought it forward and passed it as indeed that Government proposed in primary legislation separate seats for Orkney and Shetland, which I certainly supported, but it was of course a measure which was brought forward in a Bill from a Labour Government. What we are dealing with—

[Lord McAvoy]

Yes, of course it was agreed at the time, and there were many pressures for it, not least the inducement to the noble and learned Lord—I do not mean illegal or anything improper—as I understand it, made by the leader of the Labour Party, the late Donald Dewar, that Orkney and Shetland would get separate seats; of course that was agreed at the time. But does the Minister still think it fair, in an atmosphere where everything has been quoted as fair, that the area that he used to represent gets special treatment compared to mine?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The previous Labour Government did a wonderful job when they brought forward the proposals for the Scotland Bill, which I was happy to support, and which indeed were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in a referendum. But the effect of the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be that, before any order was made under Clause 9(4), the Minister would be required to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, in addition, of course, to the Electoral Commission. As I indicated in my response to the previous amendment, the kind of changes that are anticipated under this order-making power are for matters such as the information that goes on the polling card; information that would go with a postal voting statement; matters which currently reflect the first past the post system, but obviously would need to be changed with an alternative vote, should that be the will of the electorate in the referendum.

In all fairness, I am not sure that that is high on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly, or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Voting systems for UK parliamentary elections is a reserved matter. It was a matter of common ground in the Act that was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which I was happy to support and was supported by the Scottish people; the Government of Wales Act was supported by the Welsh people in a referendum; likewise for Northern Ireland, where it was agreed that UK parliamentary elections are reserved.

It is not necessary, therefore, for the UK Government to be subject to a statutory requirement to consult the devolved Parliament and Assemblies before making an order, which will be of a technical nature. We are not aware of any similar requirement to consult the devolved Administrations in respect of existing aspects of electoral law relating to UK parliamentary elections.

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It is certainly not the Government’s policy to change the system but I think that my party’s view on which system it would prefer is well known. Let us also recall that the voting systems commission was established under Sir John Arbuthnott at around the time of the 2004 legislation and it did not recommend any substantive change to the system. However, I can think of an election system in Scottish local government which would ensure that all vacancies were contested by way of a by-election, but I think that I am probably straying too far on that point.

Also on by-elections, I say to my noble friend Lord Lyell that these boundaries will apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament and not to general elections or elections to the United Kingdom Parliament—indeed, they will apply to the elections in which my noble friend can vote. I am not sure which constituency he is in, but I can certainly confirm that they apply to elections for the Scottish Parliament.

Perhaps I may pick up on some of the other points that were raised. I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was going to declare an interest, but he has no interest to declare because these matters will take place after he ceases to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament’s loss is no doubt our added gain, but we will wait to see. The noble Lord raised the issue, as did a number of noble Lords, about the inquiry system, but he also asked about the power of the Presiding Officer to change the date of the election. It is my understanding that the Presiding Officer can change the date by one month either way. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Deputy Prime Minister have spoken relatively recently to the First Minister and to the Presiding Officer about the possibility of the two elections being on the same day in 2015 and whether there are other ways of dealing with that to try to avoid that happening. No firm view has been taken yet, but the matter is under active consideration.

On the issue of inquiries, it is the case that a system of inquiry led to this order, which has been so greatly welcomed, lauded and praised that I am sure it will have no difficulty in getting through. That said, I could not help but reflect that my noble friend Lord Maclennan complained about the size of the north Highland constituency that has been produced under this system of inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, also indicated that he had argued, under the existing system, for Rutherglen not to be in the Glasgow regional area but to be in a different area. Of course, the present system did not assist him in giving him what he wished, although my friend in the Scottish Parliament who is a list Member for Glasgow obviously managed successfully to persuade the Boundary Commission.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, would the Minister accept that the MSP to whom he refers went completely against local interests?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that is clearly beyond this point. People from different political parties took different views.

I would also like to reflect on what was said by Professor Ron Johnston, who is a professor of geography at the University of Bristol whose research interests include electoral and political geography. On oral inquiries, he said that they are,

“very largely an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek influence over the Commission's recommendations—in which their sole goal is to promote their own electoral interests”.

Far be it from me to suggest that that was what happened, but I just ask noble Lords to wonder whether there might have been something of that when people needed to get lawyers—even if they had to pay for their lunch—to argue their case.

Elections: AV Referendum and Scottish Parliament

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the representations made by the Convener of the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland stating that any referendum on introducing the alternative vote could not be combined in Scotland with elections to the Scottish Parliament under that Parliament's current rules.

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

My Lords, the letter that my right honourable friend received from the convener of the board made no such representations. Specifically, there are no rules of the Scottish Parliament which deal with these matters as responsibility for election administration remains with the United Kingdom Parliament.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, that then begs the question of exactly who arranges and legislates for the specific date. What the Minister has said contradicts what the election board convener has said and needs further clarification. When the Deputy Prime Minister made a Statement in the other place on the proposed referendum he made no mention of the position in Scotland regarding the date. The suspicion there is that in the rush to satisfy the Liberals, no proper consideration was given to ascertaining the correct position regarding the date. How does it meet with the Government’s policy of respect for the Scottish Parliament and for this House if we are asked to rush through legislation based not on the needs of the country but on the needs of a shabby collaboration between two political parties?

[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.