Scotland: Constitutional Settlement

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, when the Scottish Parliament was established, many of us recognised that more would need to be done in due course. There was at that time recognition that we needed greater financial accountability because it is not healthy to have a Parliament that had total discretion as to how it spent money but little or no discretion as to how it raised that money. It was important that we recognised that in the 2012 Act which this Parliament passed, and the proposals that we have now strengthen that position.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

I do not think we should forget that the no vote won in Scotland, or those people who voted no. Does the Minister agree that a constitutional convention is so important because we need to devolve power throughout the UK and doing that would change the nature and role of this House and the House of Commons? If we are to get that right, we need to take our time and give it a lot of thought.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us that the no vote won. It won by more than 10%, which was a clear margin. He is also right to say that in looking at these issues it is not only important that we get it right but that it is seen to be equitable to all parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed strengthens rather than weakens the union.

Scotland: Smith Commission

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I heed what my noble friend says. It is also fair to say that much in the heads of agreement that has emerged today is based on previous work. In my party’s case, it was done by a commission under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell. Proposals came from the work done by the Labour Party. The Conservative Party produced proposals through a committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. So the Smith commission had a considerable volume of work available to it to help to formulate its proposals. My noble friend, and my noble friend Lord Baker, mentioned the opportunity to debate. My noble friend the Leader of the House is here, and the understandable wish for further debate will certainly be taken on board by the usual channels.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very clear Statement by the Minister on the way forward for Scotland. Does he accept that this also provides a great opportunity for all four parts of the United Kingdom to look at how we organise our government, both devolved government between the four parts of the United Kingdom and government of the United Kingdom itself? That is why so many of us say that there needs to be a constitutional convention. If we do not take it forward in that way, there is a real risk that we will drift into making short-term amendments to our constitutional arrangements which do not solve some of the problems that exist not just within England but within Wales and between the four parts of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister is treading a fine line here, but I strongly urge that a constitutional convention is considered as taking an opportunity, rather than leaving the risk that we begin to make back-of-a-fag-packet amendments.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soley, who I know has had a strong interest in these issues and how they affect not only Scotland but other parts of the United Kingdom. I repeat that the Government have made it clear that they will consider proposals for the establishment of a convention. As my noble friend Lord McConnell, who is sitting beside the noble Lord, knows, a convention is not necessarily a quick answer, but nor should it be an excuse for kicking things into the long grass.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have tabled these amendments and who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, has given a context to these deliberations. I think that he would agree with us—and I mention here the intervention of my noble friend Lord Lester—that justice or security is not a binary choice. This is a justice and security Bill, not a justice or security Bill. As we deliberate and go through these provisions, it is important that we seek to uphold the national security, which is a responsibility above all on the Executive, and also ensure that the values of justice—which is a cornerstone of what we believe in and what makes us as a nation—are upheld.

The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, may also have some pertinence as we move to the next stage of the Bill, which deals with the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. He pointed to the importance of trust and the consequences of breach of trust.

As an introductory comment, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that my noble friend and I will write to him about the point he raised about the last set of amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate, when dealing with these amendments, to rerun the arguments put forward for the previous group. However, before Report stage, we will write to noble Lords who took part in that debate.

Understandable concerns have been raised. In many Bills I have taken part in, quite proper discussion takes place about the use of secondary legislation, its appropriateness, the circumstances under which it should be used, and its actual nature. If Amendments 69A or 70 were to be accepted, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson has said, it would remove the order-making power entirely. The question posed by the amendments is this: why do we need the order-making power at all?

Perhaps I may set out why the Government arrived at the approach we have taken in the Bill with regard to the definition of “relevant civil proceedings”. In the Green Paper, the Government consulted on making closed material proceedings an option for any civil proceedings in which sensitive material was relevant. However, the firm steer from the consultation exercise was that the scope of the Bill should be narrowly focused. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Marks and in the comments of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. After careful consideration of the consultation responses, the Bill provides that closed material proceedings can be used only for hearings in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session. It is in these courts that the difficult cases have arisen, so the Government have defined relevant civil proceedings narrowly in the Bill.

If that is the case, why do we need an order-making power to extend the definition? As was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, when he quoted from the memorandum that was submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the point is that the case for extending CMPs to another civil context may emerge in the future. Where there is a case for change, it is important that there is a mechanism that will allow CMPs to be used swiftly in relevant proceedings. Naturally, we may be asked if we have any particular case in mind. I reassure your Lordships that if there was an obvious example of a difficult area, we would be making the case for its inclusion in the definition of relevant civil proceedings today. But it is possible that difficulties may arise in areas wholly unexpected or unanticipated, and it would then be important that CMPs were available as a matter of some urgency. Noble Lords may be aware that Parliament has already legislated 14 times to provide CMPs in different contexts, and therefore it is not inconceivable that some new context that we cannot foresee today will arise in the future in which they will be necessary.

Perhaps I may say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who asked about employment tribunals, that legislation is already in place with regard to closed material proceedings in such tribunals. Indeed, it was the subject matter of the deliberations of the Supreme Court in the case of Tariq, the judgment of which was reported either last year or earlier this year. The current review of employment tribunals by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills does not have anything to do with closed material proceedings.

The crucial thing about the power is that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the exercise of the power would have to be debated and approved in both Houses before being made. Before gaining that approval, the case for change would have to be made to each House on the basis of evidence that is sufficient to convince both Houses. I cannot for a moment imagine that it would be given a clear ride. That is a safeguard and it means that rather than standing here and trying to persuade your Lordships that a broader definition of relevant civil proceedings is needed for the sake of flexibility, the Government will have to put their case at the time of seeking approval of an order.

As has been said, the order-making power has been the subject of scrutiny by both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Marks are members, and the Constitution Committee. The Government appreciate the careful consideration that both committees have given the power. I note that neither committee recommended the removal of the power, but it is fair to note, and as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had reservations about the scope of the power. However, it concluded tentatively but nevertheless clearly that it would not recommend that the delegation of powers is inappropriate.

No doubt members of the committee will know better, and I will come on to address the issue of coroners’ courts shortly, but paragraph 6 of its report indicated that one of the concerns was extending the use of this power to those courts.

[Lord Soley]

The key point is that instead of doing it with a delegated power, we do it with a fast-tracked Bill. I hope that the Minister will deal with that because I would point out to him that the information given by both the Ministry of Justice’s own department and the Cabinet Office suggest that it is necessary that it be done quickly. However, that is not in the notes to this Bill. It is almost as though they have not thought about it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I certainly will come on to that. Both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised means of proceeding as alternatives to the power. The Constitution Committee asked whether the super-affirmative procedure was more appropriate, similar to that set out in Part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. In particular, that procedure would enable parliamentary representations to be made about a draft instrument and for the Minister to make changes to the instrument in the light of those representations. The Government indicated in their response to the committee that they do not agree with that approach. The powers in Part 1 of the 2006 Act are wide-ranging. Under the order-making power in the Bill, there will be at the heart a simple question: should the CMP procedure under the Bill, then the Act, be available for a particular court or tribunal? The affirmative procedure allows for a straightforward yes or no answer.

As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has indicated, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked what would be the advantage of the affirmative procedure over a short emergency Bill. Another Bill to address a narrow problem may well be unnecessary given that the detail of how CMPs should work will have been discussed during the passage of this Bill. Although such legislation might be passed quickly if the circumstances required it—it is always possible to bring forward emergency legislation—the affirmative procedure may also be exercised in urgent circumstances. While it is not for me to say what the agenda of the Constitution Committee would be, it would not seem to be beyond the wit of appropriate parliamentary committees to consider an affirmative order if one were brought forward.

On the whole, the Government consider that the affirmative procedure has the right mix of speed and accountability. However, in situations like this where people have put forward important points following deliberation in the various committees as to what the balance should be, we should reflect on them. The Government believe that they have struck the right balance, but there has been an important elaboration in the course of your Lordships’ debate of the understanding of what lay behind the committee’s considerations.

UK: Union

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any proposals to inform the public about the advantages of maintaining the union of the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said at Second Reading of the Scotland Bill that the United Kingdom,

“is one of the most effective political and economic unions that the world has ever seen”.—[Official Report, 6/9/11; col. 234.]

The Government wholeheartedly agree, and my ministerial colleagues and I will do all that we can to make the case for the United Kingdom. I also urge those who support this unique partnership to join the debate and promote its benefits.

[Lord Soley]

I am very grateful for that Answer. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this message needs to go out not just in Scotland but in England too? There is a very real danger to our nationalism and we need to get out the message that many states around the world envy our stable system, which has brought peace and prosperity to the United Kingdom and is a model for other countries. Does he also agree that this issue is not for any one party or any one part of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I certainly agree that this is not for any one party or any one part of the United Kingdom. Judging by the response to my Answer and to the noble Lord’s Question, we all share a common interest in spelling out the merits for the union, which is of 304 years’ duration. I think the question the separatists have to answer is: why separate?

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Soley]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

Privacy Injunctions

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and learned Lord is right that they must apply the law as it is. It is important, as the report indicates, that openness is a cornerstone of our democracy and with our judicial proceedings and system. If that is departed from, it can be only in the most exceptional circumstances. The report by the Master of the Rolls and his committee also raises some issues of how that commitment to openness might well be enhanced. Clearly, these matters will, in part, form the discussion of the Joint Committee that is to be set up.

[Lord Soley]

I put forward a Bill some 20 years ago on the freedom and responsibility of the press. I think that the Minister will remember the debate. At this stage, I strongly support the Joint Committee but it is a mistake to think that the privacy issue is about just these sexual cases that come up. An awful lot of cases referred then, and do now, to ordinary folk who get caught up in tragic incidents in their lives. Often, it is a death in the family or things of that nature. That is one factor that privacy needs to address. It is not about just the big sexual cases that the press like to report for money; they also arise in those personal life tragedies. I am in favour of the courts deciding the balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the convention, but we will have to look at this in the wider context not just of sexual issues but of the invasion of privacy of people who have suffered tragedies.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

I was trying not to intervene but I have to do so in view of what the Minister has just said. The type of statement that would worry me is if the party political broadcast was majoring on, for example, giving more power to the people—which might be about a range of things, local authorities or whatever— and it said, “If you vote this way or that way on the referendum, that will increase your power”. I suppose that we need to go back to the broadcasters on this, but I do not think that that ought to be allowed. The Minister makes a fair point; we want to allow the broadcasters flexibility but they need to be aware that a statement like that would be seen as giving significant support to the referendum one way or the other.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he presents a very tricky and complex issue. I think I indicated that one of the difficulties was the possibility of limiting the ability of a party to show how its position on the referendum formed part of a wider policy platform. The point I have been trying to make is that broadcasters have experience in this matter. It is probably invidious for Governments to decide what goes too far and what is on the right side of the line. There is also a question of whether legislating to such specificity on the content of party election broadcasts could risk limiting a political party’s freedom of expression. I do not think that anyone here would wish that to happen.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

I referred to this matter in my earlier comments and I am encouraged to make a further comment partly by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford but also by that made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The problem here is paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 1. Paragraph 9(1) is very clear. It does not put the Electoral Commission in the firing line at all. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who I assume will answer this debate, heard anything of the previous debate he will have heard anxiety expressed in all speeches about the dangers of putting the Electoral Commission in a position where it takes the blame for not getting a balanced view of the two systems. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is very difficult to write a pamphlet describing the two systems without, in some way, being biased. My noble friend Lord Rooker has already touched on this.

There seem to be two ways of dealing with this problem. One is the way put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench, which is to allow a political committee, the Speaker’s Committee, to be the lightning conductor. That committee would oversee the work that was done and would sign it off and if there were any flak from it, it would not go straight to the Electoral Commission. That is one way of dealing with it.

Perhaps I may suggest another way which came to me when I heard my noble friend Lord Davies speak—I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave a fairly positive response to it—and that is the idea of the two campaigning groups being able to send out a leaflet, at public charge, so that it would be done rather like an election address. Looking back to paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (2) is problematic because that is where the Electoral Commission is required to make judgments about the wording used to describe the system. If we took out sub-paragraph (2)—I do not expect the Minister to respond to this straightaway but he might want to think about it—and simply left in sub-paragraph (1), then the Government could, in this Bill—I suspect that it would not need to go into the Bill—allow for the two campaigning groups to produce the leaflet as described by my noble friend Lord Davies with some sympathetic support from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. That could be sent round, either with the Electoral Commission’s pamphlet or separately—I should have thought it would go with it—and in that way you take the responsibility of describing the two systems other than in a very basic sense which is required in paragraph 9(1), and put the requirement in paragraph 9(2) onto the two campaigning organisations.

I hope I am making myself clear. It is slightly complicated, but I am arguing that the two campaigns will know what they want to say for and against the two systems. If they produce their own leaflets and they are circulated with the pamphlet put out by the Electoral Commission, which they will do under paragraph 9(1), then it leaves the Electoral Commission in the rather tighter position of simply saying that there is a referendum, informing people about it, informing them how to vote, but not getting into the nitty-gritty of the pros and cons or the description of how the two systems might work. That would be left to the two campaigning organisations. That way you would take the Electoral Commission out of the firing line. The alternative way is to do as my noble friend has suggested from the Front Bench and leave the Speaker’s Committee to oversee the leaflet. It seems to me that either of those systems would act as a lightning conductor for the Electoral Commission and not put it in the firing line for what will almost certainly be seen as in some way a biased leaflet. I hope I have made myself clear. Perhaps the Minister would like to think about that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for moving the amendment. This important amendment follows on from the previous debate and I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Soley. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in introducing his amendment, it is appreciated that the Electoral Commission should take the lead role in providing useful factual information. We believe it plays an important role in providing information to the public and there is a governance framework for the Electoral Commission, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which we believe has operated effectively for 10 years. It is also important to recall in the context of this amendment that latterly the Electoral Commission has had the benefit of advice and involvement of representatives from the political parties: the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the Labour Party, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for the Conservative Party and Mr David Howarth, the former Member of Parliament for Cambridge who represents the Liberal Democrats.

The Speaker’s Committee is an important part of that framework. It produces an annual report to Parliament on the commission's performance, but the nature of the role of the Speaker's Committee is different from that proposed in the amendment. The Speaker's Committee is currently not given any say in how the commission should exercise its powers. It is there to report on the performance of the commission rather than to have a say in the exercise of its powers.

The purpose of paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 1 is to provide legal clarity so that the Electoral Commission can issue information about both the first-past-the-post and the alternative vote systems which it identifies as being necessary to help public understanding of the referendum question. I hope that that goes some way to answering the point of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, which was whether we could delete paragraph 9(2) and leave it to the respective campaigns. Although the respective campaigns will have facility under the free post to put out their argument—no doubt a positive argument for why they wish to retain first past the post or to move to the alternative vote and an argument against the other system—that is clearly not a role that would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission.

Paragraph 9(2) provides a clear legal basis for the Electoral Commission, having identified a need for factual information, to provide it. In his response to the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that it could be accused of bias because first past the post was described before the alternative vote. In fairness, if one looks at the electoral question, the question for the referendum, which is part of the Bill, first past the post is mentioned there before the alternative vote, so it is probably not unreasonable that the Electoral Commission should reflect in its information the question which Parliament is debating and which appears in the Bill, published on advice from the Electoral Commission.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 31st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

The Minister has said that that will encourage improvement and I understand that. We all have to look for a way in which the Electoral Commission can set a basic standard below which people should not fall. I recognise that this point is wider than the amendment; it is not just a matter of improving it but trying to find a way of setting a basic standard.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I indicated that the commission's report on performance standards for electoral registration officers in Great Britain showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registration records standard this year. So they are already measuring and, against that, they found that just under 96 per cent had made it. I do not think there is any dispute in this Committee about the importance of electoral registration. We wish to pursue pilot studies to compare the electoral register against other public databases so that we can identify people who are not currently on the register. If the trials are successful, we will roll this out nationally to ensure that registration officers are aware of what has been shown up by the trials so that they can better target people to get them on the register. There is a commitment to improve the rate of electoral registration but we cannot accept that the referendum should be postponed, possibly indefinitely, awaiting the kind of certification which this amendment proposes. Therefore, I beg the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I had reflected on that. I thought that it was somewhat ironic that, having been lambasted, as my noble friend said, for allegedly bringing forward legislation of a partisan nature, we were accused of having partisan advantage as a basic motivation for supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. That was a perverse argument.

[Lord Soley]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is wrong. What was said is that the Liberal Democrat party has campaigned for years for a different voting system in the belief that it would increase its majority. The alternative vote system is not a full system but would improve its position. Similarly, the Conservative position, as has been indicated in a number of statements over the years by the Conservative Party, is that 600 seats instead of the current number would increase the proportion of its MPs. Both parties have stated that these systems are to their advantage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, if I speak for long enough I might get a full answer to the second of the noble and learned Lord’s questions. With regard to his initial question about the interim reviews and the repealing of subsection (3), the reason for this is that the existing legislation reflects the fact that the constituencies may require adjustment during what is, at present, the long period that elapses between full reviews. However, it is believed that if the full reviews are to take place every five years, there may not be a need—certainly there will scarcely be any time—to conduct an interim review. Clause 13, for completeness, makes transitional provisions for the outcome of the interim reviews, which are currently under way in Wales.

With regard to the modifications, the clause allows modifications to the Boundary Commission’s recommendations only in an Order in Council that gives effect to those recommendations at the request of one of the four commissions and with its reasons set out in writing. This was tabled as an amendment on Report in another place, following an amendment that was tabled in Committee by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It was done to get the substance of that committee’s amendment into proper form. I do not necessarily anticipate that it would lead to any significant change to the proposals that were being brought forward. As I indicated, any modifications would require some explanation in writing, which would be at the behest of the Boundary Commission. I regret that I do not have the views of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee as to why it wishes the original amendment to be brought forward, but my information is that it was in response to that.

If I just keep on talking, I am sure that I will be able to give the noble and learned Lord an even fuller answer to a perfectly legitimate question. As far as we know, the power to make modifications has never been used but has existed since the 1940s. It is envisaged that it may be used to correct an error that comes to light only after the initial report has been made. I hope that that explanation satisfies him.

[Lord Soley]

This is a bad clause. It is not bad simply because of its content but, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, because it has been drawn up in a way that is designed to meet a short-term political problem and has not been dealt with in the way in which a constitutional reform of this type ought to be dealt with. The Boundary Commission of all things, given its implications for the future of MPs, constituencies and constituents, ought to have been given far more detailed consideration, but the Bill has been brought forward in just a few months following the deal between the two political parties. It is a good example of bad law. It comprises a constitutional change that is underpinned by Boundary Commission reports that were necessarily drawn up in haste. All the things we have heard about the electoral register and the whole electoral registration process indicate the detailed work that should have been done on the Bill in a proper constitutional way either by committee beforehand or through an inquiry. Instead, it has been hastily drawn up and placed before us at short notice.

I have worries about the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission being able to complete this task in the necessary detail in the time available. It troubles me that when you rush something like this, you could well get into difficulties with it. I remember the previous time when we tried to change how votes were cast and push things on the Electoral Commission that it was unhappy about. My Government were in power at the time, so I have to accept some responsibility for this. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the policy, it resulted in considerable problems on the ground.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

I understand the noble and learned Lord’s problem in that he is a member of the Liberal Democrat party but is speaking for a coalition Government. The idea of reducing the size of the House of Commons to the suggested figure is not new. It was first put by the Conservative Party in 2004 and reiterated in 2009 and 2010. The two reasons given were, first, that the Tories did not get sufficient seats from the system with the current number, and, secondly, the cost. Those are the only two reasons that were given until the general election. They are in writing in a number of Conservative Party documents.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord rightly reminds me that I am speaking on behalf of the coalition Government, and I reiterate that we have not done any political modelling on the possible political outcome of a House of Commons of 600.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for this amendment, which has given us an opportunity to raise the two issues—the double barrels, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, referred to it—of the timetable for the boundary review and the very important issue of trying to ensure that the electoral register is as accurate as it can be. In the spirit of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, I want to make it clear that this should not be a partisan issue with regard to trying to ensure that as many people who are eligible to register do register.

Perhaps I should also say at the outset, if it keeps the noble Lord, Lord Soley, happy, that I have not asked any of my colleagues not to speak. I know full well what their reaction would be if I tried to do so. Maybe he will interpret my not asking them not to speak as being to encourage them—I hope noble Lords follow me.

[Lord Soley]

I want it to be clear that no one on the government payroll has asked Members not to speak because of the time that it takes.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that I have made it clear that I have not asked any of my colleagues not to speak. I am not quite sure that I could make it any clearer than that.

With regard to the timetable, the indication we have given is that we wish the changes in Part 2 to be in effect for the election due to take place in May 2015. One could say that that is dependent on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but in any event, even under our present constitutional arrangements for the timing of elections, the latest date would be May 2015. It is the wish of the Government that constituency sizes should be of an equal size in time for that election. That is why we are asking the Boundary Commissions to bring forward their reports by October 2013. That would give time between the reports—one for each constituent nation of the United Kingdom—being published and an opportunity for the parties, the importance of which I think someone mentioned, to gear up, as it were, to what will be different boundaries.

With regard to the issue that I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about whether this is feasible, my noble friend Lord Phillips quoted from the Constitution Committee report where the Boundary Commission had indicated that it would be feasible. In giving evidence to the committee in another place, the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales said:

“I don’t think the timescales for Wales are going to be too challenging”.

The question was then directed to the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England, which is obviously much larger. He said:

“Taking a potential worst case scenario, based upon what is in the Bill in front of us, the initial view of myself and the Commission is that the timetable is achievable”.

The noble and learned Lord went on to ask why not do this in two and a half years every time, and why institute five-yearly reviews after that? The reason is that a five-yearly review would mean that there would be a boundary review in each Parliament. If he thinks about it, with a two and a half year or three-year review, you could have two reviews within one Parliament and a boundary review producing constituencies for an election that would not take place. I am sure he agrees that that would be farcical. That is the reason for the five-yearly review, and later we will debate other amendments regarding seven and eight year reviews. As was noted by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, the second part of the amendment has a six-yearly review. We believe that a review every five years would mean that in each Parliament, if the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill goes through, there is less likely to be disruption. The more frequent the reviews, the less the opportunity for wide divergence and therefore the less would be the likelihood of disruption.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Soley

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is similar to the changes that occurred in Scotland after the noble Lord’s Government, which he supported, reduced the number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons from 72 to 59 when Scotland had 73 first past the post seats and 28 seats. I am not sure whether he objected when that legislation was brought before this House back in 2005 or 2006, but I hear his point. When we come to that part of the Bill, I have no doubt whatever that there will be discussions on the subject of Wales and the Isle of Wight.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked whether a boundary review could be judicially reviewed. I remind the House that the question of hybridity was raised at the first stage of the proceedings on this Bill in this House and was rejected. Indeed, the position is that the Boundary Commissions can be judicially reviewed. It is our hope that they will not be and that there will be no grounds for doing so. Whether any challenge would delay a review would depend on the nature of the challenge, the time it took to be heard and whether any action had to be taken as a result. Clearly, we will have ample opportunity to debate issues that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, raised about the Isle of Wight, Ynys Môn and Cornwall—I have no doubt whatever, because I received the representations, too—when we debate the second Part of this Bill.

[Lord Soley]

I am very grateful for that answer. Can the Minister get the advice of the legal officers of the Government and write to me or put a copy in the Library, because I would like to know what the judgment is about this? It is clear that the Government have made a clear commitment to Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles and the Welsh constituency too, I understand. If that is the case, it is hard to see why the Isle of Wight and, I say perhaps less confidently, Cornwall, would not at least have a case. I would welcome hearing the Government’s law officers' view.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I recall very clearly that when we discussed this in the debate on the Motion tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on hybridity, the very clear advice we got from the Clerk was that there was no issue of hybridity, which is the other side of the same coin to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, was referring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have indicated that the coalition programme for government makes a clear commitment to both issues, and it is the Government’s view that the issues are linked, particularly in terms of how the House of Commons will be shaped when it is reconstituted after the election in 2015. As my noble friend Lord McNally has said on many occasions, the linkage is fair votes and fair boundaries. The Government are committed to both provisions if a yes vote is carried in the referendum. The Government therefore wish to see both provisions, if the yes vote is carried, to come into effect in time for the next general election. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Soley]

The Minister has been quite helpful on some of these points. I agree that the Boundary Commission can be judicially reviewed and I accept that the House decided that this is not a hybrid Bill. What I am interested in is that when I asked him about the Isle of Wight, on which I will focus in relation to the amendment that we are discussing, a challenge under this current amendment would prevent the system going forward in the way the Bill envisages; so the question whether there can be a legal challenge is crucial.

Let us put Cornwall to one side for a moment because I am not familiar enough with its case. I know the area of the Western Isles rather well, but I do not know Orkney and Shetland. However, I do know that those two areas have similar problems to the problem faced by the constituency of the Member for the Isle of Wight, who has argued the case very strongly in the House of Commons. If there is a similar problem, there are the conditions for a possible legal challenge. Indeed, I think the Minister used the phrase “it is common sense” when he said that the two Scottish seats are very different. I am a great believer in common sense, but I have to say that it can get you into deep trouble when you go into a court of law.

This goes back to a point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker that there is a case for the Government to be more willing to compromise on this Bill and at least to offer to investigate. I would very much like to know, and I am sure that councillors on the Isle of Wight would love to know, the government law officers’ view on whether a legal challenge could be mounted because there was no Boundary Commission review of the Isle of Wight. It seems at least possible, so it would be good if we could have the lawyers’ views on this.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I hesitate to say because, although I am only seven or eight months into office, one of the cardinal rules for a law officer is not to expose what your advice to the Government is. Indeed, you do not even disclose whether advice has been given. However, I will reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has said and not necessarily answer his question about advice but perhaps revisit the advice that was given to the House by the Clerks when the particular issue of hybridity was looked at.