Scotland Bill
Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for bringing this forward. I cannot help but make the point that it is a pity that we are dealing with this at this time of night and that noble Lords are curtailing their contributions in this most significant period of the evening. Quite frankly, we have been treated to two or three hours of negativity and continual attacks on the Bill and the Ministers bringing forward the Bill, and it is refreshing to have an extremely positive contribution from my noble friend to address a problem—and there is a problem.
Saying that there is a one-party state is overstating it, but we miss the experience of having Scottish nationalist party Members in this House contributing to this debate. It is mirrored in some ways in the Scottish Parliament where the committee system was supposed to balance things. However, I understand that one party controls the committee chairs and members of committees. They are not operating as a check and balance on the Executive. That is to be regretted.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes has no great expectation —although you never know—of this amendment being incorporated into the Bill, but he has sparked a debate about a real issue that we need to address, which the people of Scotland, the Scottish nationalist party and the other Scottish political parties have to look at as well. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this is probably not the Bill to do that in, but by moving the amendment my noble friend has raised the issue, highlighted it and received some very thoughtful contributions from noble Lords. They had elements of negativity, but they nevertheless addressed the problem. I will not mention anyone in particular who has been negative all night, but he knows who is.
My noble friend has done us all a service by bringing this forward. The details are in the amendment and noble Lords will understand the amount of work that has been put in by my noble friend in assembling it. It is a first-class amendment and we are not opposed to it. We congratulate our noble friend on bringing it forward and hope that it sparks a debate not just in this Chamber but with our Scottish National Party colleagues in Scotland so that they can turn their mind to this. That would be the real bonus to come from my noble friend’s contribution. If we can spark a debate in Scotland so that the situation is looked at, my noble friend will have done a commendable service. I therefore appeal to our colleagues in Scotland to give this proposal particular attention.
We can be proud of the example we set. Most of us here, although not all, are determined not to destroy the place by what could be called irresponsible behaviour. Most of us are committed to the positive side of this House and the revising job that it does. I would like to see something like that in Scotland and I hope that we can take our Scottish National Party colleagues along with us. I think that the people of Scotland would be better served by that. I close by again thanking my noble friend for his extremely thoughtful contribution.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, might appreciate, I am increasingly conscious that the robust scrutiny of this Chamber could be seen as an elegant example of how a second Chamber can operate. Be that as it may, the proposal he has put forward by way of his amendment is not a reflection of what was contained in the Smith commission agreement. The establishment of a second Chamber did not feature. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his personal recommendations observed that the transfer of these substantial new powers would mean that the Scottish Parliament’s oversight of the Scottish Government would need to be strengthened. I recognise the noble Lord’s desire to see that the exercise of these substantial new powers should be properly and effectively scrutinised.
This Government fully endorse the recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the Scottish Parliament’s oversight of the Scottish Government needs to be strengthened, but as the noble Lord set out, it is in the first instance the responsibility of the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliament to take forward this important work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his contribution to this debate and for putting before us what was noted by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, to be a real issue. Nevertheless, I say on behalf of the Government that this is not the place for such an amendment. This is not a place to bring in such a proposal when it was not addressed in the Smith commission agreement, and I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl and congratulate him on his amendment. I will be relatively brief as well. We support much of what is suggested, other than proposed new paragraph (2)(d), as we do not believe that the “appropriateness” of devolution needs to be reviewed. We will be proposing similar arrangements with regard to the transfer of the welfare provisions, so the amendment is extremely useful.
I think the noble Earl would accept that such arrangements are founded on mutual respect and co-operation between the two Governments. We all have to be careful with the sensitivity of language but we cannot have it portrayed—I know the noble Earl has not done this—as Westminster talking down to Holyrood. But conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation, friendship and mutual respect, I think there can be a great service done to the Scottish people and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for putting forward this amendment. As your Lordships are aware, the matter of intergovernmental working was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his introduction to the Smith commission agreement, in which he emphasised its importance in achieving the aims of devolution.
A considerable degree of very positive co-operation between the Scottish and United Kingdom institutions takes place on a daily basis, from routine dialogue on matters such as planning for civil contingencies to supporting business and exports. It would be difficult to report on each and every one of these interactions. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that they should be as transparent as possible.
Specific steps have been taken recently in encouraging more regular collaboration between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments in areas of joint interest. One example of such work is the cross-Administration “Devolution and You” Civil Service capability campaign, which the Cabinet Secretary launched in June 2015. In addition, there is now the Joint Ministerial Working Group on Welfare, which was established to provide a forum for discussion and decision-making on implementation of the welfare-related aspects of the Smith commission agreement.
I also welcome the work of the Constitution Committee on behalf of this Chamber and note its recommendations regarding increased cross-parliamentary scrutiny of intergovernmental relations. This was also recommended by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee. It will be important to see how Parliament responds to these recommendations. Furthermore, my noble friend Lord Dunlop set out during Second Reading details of how we are working with the three devolved Administrations to review intergovernmental arrangements and ensure effective working relationships with those Administrations.
There is a concern that a statutory duty to report on these interactions could prove burdensome and might prove unnecessary. However, we—the Government —are happy to take away and consider what the noble Earl has suggested, and explore how we may incorporate these suggestions into the work which is going on with regard to intergovernmental relations. I would be happy to discuss this with him. However, having regard to the present terms of the Bill and the comments that have been made, I invite my noble friend to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I thank all of your Lordships for your kind support for this amendment, starting with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord McAvoy. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, emphasised and drew to our attention the vital importance of the two Parliaments and Governments being on equal terms. That must be key to success.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, gave us an example from his own experience, which started off in an intransigent way with people not talking to each other. As he said, that can be converted to something constructive when people do otherwise.
I take the point made by my noble friends Lord Lang, Lord Sanderson and Lord Lindsay, who commented that the amendment might go further than it does. My noble friend also suggested that it should apply to all parts of the Bill and instanced, from his past committee work, evidence from other institutions and Parliaments in other parts of the world which proves beyond doubt that successful government comes from proper co-operation between the parties concerned.
I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has just said—namely, that he will take this amendment away. Meanwhile, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, Clauses 3 to 10 devolve full powers to the Scottish Parliament in respect of the registration, franchise, administration and conduct of Scottish parliamentary elections, with the exception of certain specified subject matters which are reflected in the Smith commission agreement.
Government Amendment 24 removes what is now a redundant provision in respect of the Scottish Ministers’ order-making powers under new Section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998, which is to be inserted by Clause 4. Following amendment on Report in the Commons, new Section 12(1) allows the Scottish Ministers to make provision under that section if it,
“would be within the legislative competence of”,
the Scottish Parliament,
“if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament”.
Since the digital service is reserved under new Section B3(B) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, as inserted by Clause 3, the order-making power of the Scottish Ministers under the new Section 12 cannot extend to making provision about the digital service. In Clause 6, additional powers are transferred to Scottish Ministers to make provision about the digital service in relation to Scottish parliamentary elections and to local government elections in Scotland, with the agreement of UK Ministers. Amendment 24 is essentially a technical amendment which arises out of the amendment on Report in the Commons to new Section 12(1).
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am conscious of the late hour but I would like to move Amendment 26. As we have already discussed during the course of the evening, there is no second Chamber in the Scottish Parliament. This House has an important constitutional role in preventing the House of Commons from extending its own life. Although the circumstances in which that might happen are hard to consider, it is an important check and balance.
This amendment seeks to make it quite clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot extend the interval between ordinary general elections and therefore prolong its own life under any circumstances. It would have been possible of course to make that subject to the agreement of the Westminster Parliament—the British Parliament—but I think that an absolute prohibition on extending the life is the most appropriate way to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I note the reasoning behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. At present, Section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that general elections are to be held every four years. That power is to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but it will not be without limitation. The Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Pursuant to Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, there is a requirement for free and fair elections at reasonable intervals. The Smith commission agreement proposes that it should be for the Scottish Parliament to determine those reasonable intervals. We consider that that is appropriate and in accordance with the recommendations of the agreement, which the Bill seeks to implement. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have to say to my noble and learned friend that I do not think that that is a very satisfactory response. There was talk earlier in the evening about a one-party state and the dominance of the Parliament by one party. The precedent is long established that it is not possible for the other place to extend the life of a Parliament. Were it to try to do so, this House has an important role, which would prevent that from happening except in the most exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I have misunderstood what my noble and learned friend said, but he appeared to say that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide what the timing is between elections, and that cannot be right.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Scottish Parliament might decide to do this under its current regime and Administration but I rather anticipated in putting down this amendment that my noble and learned friend would tell me that there was some other protection. Frankly, for this Government of all Governments to say that we should rely on the European Convention on Human Rights is ironic—to put it mildly. I hope that my noble friend will at least undertake to give this further consideration before we return to later stages of the Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie
I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. I had not appreciated that he intended to speak in the context of this proposed amendment and intervened too early. For that I apologise.
I will just add that the Smith commission agreement determined, on the basis of the consensus of five political parties, that elections to the Scottish Parliament should be devolved, and that the timing of those elections should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We must regard the Smith commission agreement as the product of a responsible negotiation by responsible political parties, and we must regard the Scottish Parliament as a responsible devolved body. We have no right to do otherwise, if I might respectfully say so. Given the existing backstop in terms of convention law pursuant to which, under Article 3 of Protocol 1, there is a requirement for free and fair elections at reasonable intervals, in my submission that appears an appropriate way forward.
On the matter of extending the life of the Parliament, as raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, an Order in Council under Section 30 in October 2015 allowed the Scottish Parliament to set the 2016 election at more than four years, extending it to five years. I am not aware of another occasion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On my noble and learned friend’s reference to the European convention, what constitutes a reasonable interval? Would five or six years constitute a reasonable interval?
Lord Keen of Elie
That would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine, and is subject to review. If it gets that wrong, any legislation that it passes is not law, pursuant to Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. Clearly I cannot comment on any dialogue that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has had recently with the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I merely observe that there is a distinction between improving the Bill in order to implement the Smith commission agreement and, on the other hand, extending the Bill so that it goes beyond the terms of the agreement, or in fact retreating so that the Bill does not implement it. We would of course be happy to pursue further dialogue ourselves with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, if he felt that that would be useful.
These amendments seem to fall into two broad categories: on the one hand, amendments to the current clauses that are intended to improve the drafting of the Bill, and, on the other, a second theme extending the scope of the supermajority clause to matters that were not included in the Smith commission agreement. I shall deal with these in turn. I turn first to those amendments put forward as a means of improving the operation of Clause 11 as and when it is implemented. Amendment 35 would allow for a Bill to be passed without a Division. Our considered position is that a Division is the most straightforward way of verifying that a two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament has been achieved. For this reason, we cannot agree with the proposal in Amendment 35, which provides for a Bill to be passed by consensus.
In addition, we do not agree with the proposal in Amendment 39 that the Scottish Parliament should be able to “reconsider” a Bill if the Presiding Officer decides that a supermajority is required and the Supreme Court later affirms this. Nor do we agree with Amendment 40, which appears to provide that the Scottish Parliament should be able to reconsider a Bill if the Presiding Officer decides that a supermajority is required and the Bill receives only a simple majority. We consider that in both these situations there should be careful consideration and no short-cut to a final vote which requires the supermajority in the context of such legislation.
While we agree with the rationale behind Amendments 30 and 38 and parts of Amendments 37 and 40, we believe that the Bill as drafted provides for these considerations and that therefore such amendment is unnecessary. We would of course be happy to discuss this further with the proposers of the amendments.
I will address those amendments which seek to extend the scope of the supermajority provision, particularly Amendments 31 and 33, and I think a part of Amendment 34. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 seek to ensure that legislation brought forward by the Scottish Parliament concerning the period of time between ordinary general elections to the Scottish Parliament should also be covered by the requirement for a two-thirds majority. The second part of Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that Bills concerning the alteration of boundaries of constituencies, regions or any equivalent electoral area for the Scottish Parliament should also be covered by the two-thirds majority. The simple response of the Government is that the Smith commission agreement specifically outlined the subject matter, which it considered should be subject to the supermajority requirement. It did not propose that legislation concerning the term length of the Scottish Parliament, the date of any Scottish Parliament elections or the alteration of boundaries should be subject to a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament. In these circumstances, we would not be content with the proposed amendments. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in view of the points that have been made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, the hour is late, but I will say just a few words in respect of this amendment, which, basically, ensures that changes to the franchise, the constituencies and the number of MSPs—which under the provisions of the Bill require a two-thirds majority—have also to be approved at Westminster. I am not a great believer in opinion polls; as we discovered at the general election, they can be quite wrong. However, it is not inconceivable that two-thirds of the Scottish Parliament at the forthcoming elections could be composed of people who believe that Scotland would be better off independent. If that were to happen, and this Parliament, which is the United Kingdom Parliament, had created circumstances in which it was possible for fundamental changes to be made to the franchise, the constituencies and the number of MSPs, that would be a matter of very considerable concern. Personally, I do not like the idea of two-thirds supermajorities; it is an unfortunate intrusion into our constitutional affairs. It has knock-on implications for other devolved institutions and for Westminster, but of course the Smith commission has recommended it, so it would appear that we have to go along with it. The amendment would provide a belt-and-braces safeguard to ensure that key issues such as the franchise, the constituencies and the number of MSPs were approved at Westminster, having also had a two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, Clause 11 requires certain types of electoral legislation to be passed by a two-thirds majority, or supermajority, of the Scottish Parliament. Paragraph 27 of the Smith commission agreement states in terms that this is:
“To provide an adequate check on Scottish Parliament legislation”,
in these areas. An “adequate check” was the consensus of the five political parties which took part in the Smith commission and which arrived at the Smith Commission agreement.
The Government consider that the supermajority requirement provides an appropriate check on this type of Scottish Parliament legislation. Indeed, to approve this amendment would be to give with one hand and then take away with the other so far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. It would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Smith commission agreement, let alone with the terms of paragraph 27. In these circumstances, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble and learned friend’s only argument has been, once again, to rest on the Smith commission. He keeps saying that it had the support of all five political parties. I am not aware of the members of the Conservative Party being consulted at all on the Smith commission proposals; nor am I aware of any discussion on those matters in the other place or in this place. What happened was that people nominated by the political parties got together and produced a report. It really is quite misleading to keep saying that this was endorsed by all the political parties. That may have been true of the Liberal Democrats or other parties but it certainly was not true of the Conservative Party. Furthermore, this was all done at an enormous pace—it was all agreed in eight weeks. As we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, himself has not sought to argue that he has endorsed this Bill in terms of the provisions of the Smith commission.
Extradition: UK Law and Practice (Extradition Law Committee Report)
Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be here to speak for the Government on the matter of extradition, in which I know the House has taken a close interest over recent years. I will seek to reply to all the points made during what has been an illuminating debate.
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Inglewood for leading this debate and extend my thanks to the Select Committee members for their thorough analysis of our extradition law and practice.
Of course, this is not the first time that our extradition laws and practices have been reviewed. In recent years, we have seen the independent Baker review and reports from the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others. The Government always read these reports with great interest.
The Extradition Law Committee’s report was particularly timely, with the newer provisions inserted into the Extradition Act 2003 in the last Parliament—such as the forum and proportionality bars—having begun to operate only quite recently. The committee’s review and scrutiny of those reforms have been of help to the Government, and we are grateful for that.
Like the committee, the Government believe that the changes made in recent years to UK extradition law mean that the process now operates more fairly and in a way in which the rights of persons are effectively balanced against the interests of justice. It was under the present Home Secretary that a number of important reforms to the system were made: for example, the introduction of the forum bar and the removal of the Secretary of State’s consideration of human rights issues in favour of that of the courts. Furthermore, the reforms of the European arrest warrant go some way, I believe, to meeting criticisms which have been made of its operation in the past. I will attempt to look at each of the points which have been raised, Should I omit any, I undertake to write to your Lordships on those matters.
I begin by mentioning, by way of background, some very basic statistics. We should remember that, in the context of extradition, we are dealing not just with persons liable to trial but with persons who have already been convicted of criminal offences. In the period between 2009 and 2014, for which figures are available, the United Kingdom received in excess of 29,000 requests for arrest warrants. Of those, fewer than 5% pertained to British nationals. So far as Part 2 requests are concerned—that is, those that fall outwith the European arrest warrant system—there were, in the same period, only 336 requests. That is a tiny proportion of the total. The United States has been repeatedly referred to, and I have just noticed that in the same period, 82 requests were received from the United States and 67 people were surrendered in consequence of those requests. On the other hand, as has already been noted, the United States responded to each and every extradition request which was submitted to it by the United Kingdom. That is an attempt to put the matter into context.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood raised a series of issues—such as assurances, sensitive information being dealt with by counsel, qualified solicitors and legal aid—all of which, to a greater or lesser extent, were touched upon by other noble Lords. I will take some of these matters in turn.
The matter of legal aid was raised by a number of your Lordships. The position of the Government remains as stated in their response to the report. It is considered inappropriate for extradition cases to form an exception to the normal provisions with regard to means testing for legal aid. There is no justification for such a position to be adopted, in our view. In the past year, 1,586 persons were the subject of a European arrest warrant, of whom just in excess of 1,000 made an application for legal aid. In 90% of those cases where legal aid was applied for, the completed application for extradition proceedings to be legally aided was processed within two working days. There are exceptions, and there may be cases where someone refused legal aid seeks a review and further documentary evidence is requested with regard to their means, which can be time consuming. But we are talking about a tiny proportion of a small number of cases. That does not, on the face of it, account for any three-month delays in the extradition process.
Connected to legal aid is the requirement for expert advice to be available to persons who are going to be the subject of extradition proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, noted that it is not the Government’s position that some form of test or certification should be required in the context of the matter of extradition. I quote from the oral evidence of the district judges which was given to the committee in October 2014:
“There is the duty solicitor situation, which is at the first hearing. We are enormously reliant on our duty solicitors, and our view is that, with one or two possible exceptions, they perform their task extremely well. I am not able to give you, and I do not think either of my colleagues here is able to give you, any example of where we thought that an individual was let down by the duty solicitor”.
Given that evidence, in our view as a Government it is difficult to justify the potentially considerable cost and inconvenience of seeking to introduce a certification system in regard to extradition. Accordingly, it remains the Government’s position that we will not go down that route.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox alluded to the provision of personal support units in the matter of civil cases before the courts and inquired whether it might be possible to extend such a provision to cases of extradition. It is a point that we notice and a point of interest, and I will undertake to write to her on the subject to see whether that matter can be taken forward. It is a novel suggestion, and one that we are willing to consider very seriously.
On assurances, matters are still the subject of inquiry. We are asked when it is likely that the Government will complete their analysis of this matter. They have undertaken to do so before the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be aware, winter comes early in Scotland, and so when we refer to “autumn” we may be there already. We are concerned that that should be done thoroughly and carefully rather than quickly. I can assure your Lordships that once that inquiry has been completed, we will seek to make your Lordships aware of its terms.
A further matter arose from the context of the United States so far as assurances are concerned. It is the position of the Government that courts are best positioned to determine what assurances may be required in each individual case of extradition. That extends to the matter of how a person is to be transferred, how the risk is to be assessed so far as their transfer is concerned, and what demands might be sought by way of assurances for bail; remembering, of course, that extradition can proceed only in trial-ready cases. However, of course, that may nevertheless involve delay before a trial commences.
There are of course varying standards of prisons, and various standards are applied in the matter of bail as between different jurisdictions. As a matter of comity, we have to be prepared to accept that in order that the extradition system can operate. There has to be a degree of reciprocity.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, alluded to the shock and fear of persons facing a foreign court. I can appreciate that. Equally, there is the shock and fear of persons facing a British court when charged with serious criminal offences. I might go further and speak by way of personal experience of the shock and fear faced by advocates sometimes facing British courts. However, it does not understate the problem. One understands that anyone who is faced with serious criminal charges will be shocked and fearful for their future, and all the more so when they are placed in a foreign jurisdiction. Nevertheless, these issues are incident to the comity that applies in the context of extradition.
If we wish to ensure that we are not a haven for criminals, we must maintain a civilised and suitable system of extradition. If we wish to secure the return of those who have committed serious criminal offences in this country, we must be prepared to allow for some degree of give and take over standards of bail, imprisonment and sentencing.
That brings me to the issue of plea bargaining. Much is said about that in the context of the United States, but at the end of the day, it is not accepted by any court that the plea bargain system is not convention-compliant. We have to acknowledge that. It may not be something that we would wish to embrace; it may not be a system we admire—but again, as a matter of comity, there has to be a degree of give and take if the extradition system is to function effectively and properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked about the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant in its present form. We are confident that, with the addition of the proportionality issue and the forum issue, we now have an effective system for the European arrest warrant. There were difficulties in the past, but we believe that we have moved on from there. Going back to the subject of the United States, it is again important to bear in mind the question of forum. It will be for a British court to determine where, essentially, a crime is considered to have been committed. We live in an internet age and a joined-up world. An act in one country can have its effect in another, many miles away. Nevertheless, the introduction of the forum defence—or the forum issue—gives us a further lever to ensure that appropriate cases are dealt with in British courts and are not the subject of extradition.
In that context, I would add that we still regard the arrest warrant as the final step to be taken. I reassure your Lordships that that remains the Government’s view: it is a matter of last resort.
Lord Rowlands
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but could he advise us what stage has been reached with the Commission’s revised handbook, in which the Government have said they want to embed the principle of last resort?
Lord Keen of Elie
I understand that we are working with other EU states and the Commission on this matter. One of the aims is to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to other instruments, but there is no clear idea of when that work will be concluded.
I have been given a two-minute warning, so I will endeavour to deal with the other matters that have been raised now, if I can. I have talked about legal aid and accreditation, and proportionality. As for certification, as I have said, we hope to publish the review before the end of the year, and I would be happy to write to my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the Home Affairs Select Committee when it is available, so that it may be given consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised the question of liaison with family courts in the context of extradition. I can advise that there is ongoing discussion with the profession and the courts over that issue. We understand its importance, and we are seeking to explore it and come to a view, so there is ongoing work there.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood raised a further point about proportionality. I will just make it clear that, as matters now operate with the European arrest warrant, consideration will only be given to cases where, subject to trial, a sentence of at least three years’ imprisonment would be imposed. In the context of a convicted party, a sentence of at least four months should have been imposed before extradition will be considered. That has to be borne in mind. Consequently, we are in a position to avoid the sort of trivial cases—or cases that were claimed to be trivial—that were made in the past. However, the Government do not consider that it would be possible to go further than this when dealing with cases of conviction without potentially breaching the framework decision that underpins the arrest warrant itself. That is why we feel it would be difficult to go further in that context.
I have some figures among my many notes that I want to mention in answer to the question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked about proportionality. Since the introduction of the proportionality bar in July 2014, the National Crime Agency has refused to certify 224 European arrest warrants on the basis of the bar and other discretionary grounds. I hope that figure assists the noble Lord.
The Government are confident that the extradition process now operates in an effective and appropriate manner, balancing the interests of justice with those of the individual. The necessary protection is provided by the courts, which have the means to seek assurances from other jurisdictions in particular circumstances and according to individual cases. Of course, the question of policing those assurances is a difficult one, but the Government do not believe that a memorandum of understanding is the way forward, as that would simply raise the question of how we police the memorandum of understanding. As I say, that matter is still the subject of further inquiry.
In closing, I once again thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood, the members of the committee and all those who have spoken today. I only hope that in replying, I have done justice to the debate.
Lord Empey
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he update us on the Polish situation, which was producing such a vast number of cases at the time we were investigating?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am aware that, according to the statistics over the past five years, a very large proportion of European arrest warrant requests—in excess of 30%—did emanate from Poland. I will write to the noble Lord with updated figures, as I do not have them to hand at present.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015
Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft order laid before the House on 29 June be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 September.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015
Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 29 June 2015 now be considered. If it pleases the Committee, I will provide a brief summary of the background to this order and set out what it seeks to achieve.
When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed, it provided that the next general election for membership of this Parliament would be 7 May 2020. That same Act also provided that the next Scottish parliamentary general election would be 5 May 2016. The Scotland Act 1998 provides for the poll at Scottish parliamentary general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every fourth year. This all combines to mean that, as things currently stand, there are due to be general elections to both the UK and Scottish Parliaments on 7 May 2020. Clearly, such a clash of elections is undesirable and this Government have always been committed to ensuring that it should be avoided.
The Government are also committed to implementing the recommendations of the Smith commission agreement. One of those recommendations is that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections in Scotland. As noble Lords will be aware, the current Scotland Bill makes provision to implement that recommendation. However, as both the UK and Scottish Governments agree that Scottish parliamentary electors should be aware of the term of the Scottish Parliament to which they are electing Members when they vote in May 2016, we are faced with an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament is to legislate in advance of the May 2016 election to determine a date for the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after that one, the power to do so needs to be devolved now. Devolving that power is exactly what this order does.
The order is made under Section 30 of the 1998 Act, which provides a mechanism whereby Schedules 4 and 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. This order will amend both Schedules 4 and 5 to the 1998 Act, with the agreement of both Parliaments. Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act lists enactments which are protected from modification by the Scottish Parliament. Much of the 1998 Act is included in that list. As I have previously mentioned, the 1998 Act provides for the poll at Scottish parliamentary general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every fourth year. Section 2(2) of the 1998 Act makes that provision. Therefore, this order will amend Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act to allow the Act of the Scottish Parliament to modify Section 2(2) in relation to the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after 2016. Secondly, Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act lists the matters that are reserved to this Parliament. Among other things, elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament are reserved. In order that the Scottish Parliament can determine the day of the poll at the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after 2016, this order will amend Schedule 5 to provide that that matter will no longer be a reserved matter.
The amendments to both schedules will combine to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the power to determine the date of the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after that to be held next May. The order also amends Section 2 of the 1998 Act in connection with the amendments to the schedules. However, the order places certain limitations on the day which can be chosen by the Scottish Parliament. Specifically, the order will prevent the day of the poll determined by the Scottish Parliament being the same as the day of the poll at a UK parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary election or ordinary local government elections in Scotland. I note that these limitations were as recommended in the Smith commission agreement.
I also take time to anticipate two matters in relation to the order. First, devolving this power to the Scottish Parliament will mean that the Scottish Parliament can, in respect of that election, legislate for the term of the relevant Parliament. Some have asked whether that could result in there being a term of 50 years determined by the Scottish Parliament. To that the Government have two responses. First, the Scottish Parliament is a responsible, democratic body; there is no realistic prospect of such a thing happening. But even if it was contemplated in the wilder imaginings of any parliamentarian, let me also point out that pursuant to Article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, there is a requirement for free elections at reasonable intervals. The Scottish Parliament, pursuant to Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 can bring forward only legislation that complies with the convention—and, in particular, Article 3 of the first protocol.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support the order. I welcome the Advocate-General’s introduction of it. My mind goes back to the passage of the 1998 Bill through this House. At that time, I tried to move amendments that would have covered exactly the issues we are debating today. I am sorry to say that I did not get any support from the Labour Government, or indeed from the Conservative Opposition at that time. It struck me as odd that we were establishing a new Parliament in Scotland, yet this Parliament was going to continue to control that Parliament’s internal affairs. That seemed to me to be wrong. I was reinforced in that view when I took office as the first Presiding Officer at the Scottish Parliament and found that silly things such as the number of Deputy Presiding Officers we were allowed to have was laid down by this Parliament—that we could do nothing to make any internal changes. I therefore welcome the order. The Smith commission was very clear in stating that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to its own elections and,
“powers to make decisions about all matters relating to the arrangements and operations of the Scottish Parliament”.
That seems to me to be common sense. I very much welcome it.
If we leave this order as it is, it is open to the Scottish Parliament to change the predicted date of a Scottish Parliament election. I have tried to work it out. I hope that my arithmetic is correct, but if we leave things as they are and the Westminster Parliament is on a fixed basis of elections every five years and the Scottish Parliament is on a fixed basis of every four years, every 20 years there will be a clash. The Scottish Parliament would therefore have to use the powers in the order to make the changes. In the light of that, it would be sensible if the Scottish Parliament were to reflect on the fact that we have a fixed-term Parliament here and in Scotland, and that it would make more sense for the fixed term to be the same so that the dates do not clash at any time. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide in the future. In the mean time, I thank the Advocate-General for the introduction of this change to Schedules 4 and 5 to the original Act and I give it a full welcome.
Lord Keen of Elie
I first acknowledge the perspicacity of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, at the time of the passage of the 1998 Act. However, I was not here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for the position that he has expressed. Of course, there has been more than one Pauline conversion on the road to final devolved settlement. We all hope that there will be more, even among the nationalists.
Housing: Leaseholders
Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it was a singular honour to be introduced to your Lordships’ House. I am obliged for the consideration and courtesy extended to me by Members and staff, and more immediately by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. My first week in this House was one of lost and found: I got lost and was found by the doorkeepers. Matters deteriorated slightly when I attempted my first Division on Wednesday of this week. I moved with alacrity to the not-content corridor. I passed through that corridor, turned right and right again. I became slightly confused but joined a group of Members standing in the vicinity of the Chamber. After a minute or so chatting away, I noticed that we were shuffling in a particular direction. It occurred to me that I was re-entering the not-content corridor. I rather thought at this moment that not even the Chief Whip would welcome my attempts to vote twice in a single Division, and I slipped away quietly to reconsider the geography of your Lordships’ House.
I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for raising this Question and for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Two particular issues are touched upon: commonhold and the right to manage. Although they appear to converge and to be related, they are of course materially very different. They are quite distinct concepts. The right to manage is, as it says, about the right of leaseholders to take over the management of a multi-unit block. Commonhold, on the other hand, is a matter concerned with the law of property—a more fundamental issue of rights and obligations.
The Government welcome suggestions to improve the working of the law of property for property owners who live in multi-occupation buildings and will of course consider all proposals carefully. However, the Government are also mindful of the need to strike a balance between the interests of all those who would be affected by any change, whether as freeholders, leaseholders or commonholders. We are also mindful of the need to avoid putting unnecessary regulatory burdens on property owners, whether they are freeholders or leaseholders.
On the matter of right to manage, that specific statutory right was conferred on long residential leaseholders in 2003. The right to manage can be assumed by an administrative process. There is no legal process required and in that way expense is kept to a minimum. It can be achieved effectively by a majority of the leaseholders in a multi-unit building. It has clearly been, in relative terms, a success. We know that because we have seen the registration of at least 4,000 right-to-manage companies at Companies House. The process is straightforward and fair. It does not involve the long leaseholders in the expense of having to acquire by enfranchisement the freeholder interest in any property.
However, one has to remember that the right to manage brings with it very material obligations and, in that context, it is important that there should so far as possible be a consensus between leaseholders as to whether they wish to assume those rights and obligations. There can be difficulties in tracing some leaseholders, but there are means by which this can be achieved if a right-to-manage company is incorporated with the intention of taking over the management of a block.
Pursuant to Section 93 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, the RTM can require the landlord to provide information with regard to the whereabouts of leaseholders. There are similar rights under Section 82 of the same Act. Our perception at this time is that the right to manage is a welcome addition to the armoury of leaseholder rights and is proving effective in the protection of those rights.
I turn now to the matter of commonhold. My noble friend Lady Gardner observed that we could trace matters back to the Wilberforce committee of 1965—that is true. The coining of the term “commonhold” dates back to 1984 and a report from the Law Commission. Thereafter, I think it would have to be accepted that matters moved slowly until we had the 2002 Act, which came into force in 2004. Part of the difficulty, which I intend to address in a moment, can be discerned from the title of that Act—the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Hand in hand with the introduction of commonhold came very material improvements in leasehold. In a sense, that carried the seeds of the difficulty encountered by commonhold as a form of land or property holding.
It was anticipated by the then Lord Chancellor in 2004 that some 6,500 commonholds would be created in each year after the Act came into force. In the event, there were not 6,500 a year; there were not 650 a year; there were not 65 a year; and there were not six a year. There have in fact been a total of 17 commonholds created since 2004. A great deal of effort, intelligence, research and work went into the creation of commonhold. It sailed under the fair wind of good intentions into a legislative Bermuda Triangle and nothing—nothing—came out.
Why should that have been? As I say, at the same time as commonhold was created, leasehold reform appeared. With those improvements, it became apparent that market forces would move in favour of continued use of leasehold rather than the adoption of commonhold. That carried with it a multitude of potential difficulties, we see now with the benefit of hindsight, including: the need to incorporate a company limited by guarantee; the need for there to be directors of that company; and the need for the directors of that company to accept the obligations of directors, including their fiduciary duties and the obligations now contained within Section 174 of the Companies Act. So we had a concept unfamiliar to property lawyers involving a further concept—corporations subject to guarantee—that was not particularly familiar to company lawyers. In these circumstances, the market has simply moved away from the idea of adopting commonhold. That is something we have to accept.
Reference was made by my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to the employment of something other than the 100% rule for commonhold. But that is not an answer to the problem; that is a means of creating a further layer of complexity and difficulty. I say that in this context: if you were to allow commonhold by virtue of the votes of a majority of those in a unit, would you, first of all, be excluding the rights of the freeholder, whose rights would be extinguished? If so, that is a deprivation of property, contrary to Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Secondly, will you deprive those non-consenting leaseholders of their rights as leaseholders, which are substantial because of the statutory protections now available to them? If so, that is a potential deprivation of property contrary to Article 1 of the first protocol.
Alternatively, will you allow those non-consenting leaseholders to remain as leaseholders of the commonhold, in which case you create not the intended community that commonhold was intended to bring about but something quite different: a division or pepperpot. There will be on the one hand commonholders of units and on the other long leaseholders who wish to remain long leaseholders within the same unit. Yet the commonholders may find that they then have a responsibility to the leaseholders because the leaseholders continue to have statutory rights about the level of service charge quite different from those of commonholders.
The commonholders’ rights and obligations in respect of the service charge are determined by contract and agreement. They do not have to be reasonable; they simply have to be agreed. However, the leaseholders who remain are entitled to the statutory protections already conferred on them. You could have a situation in which the commonholders decide on a service charge at one level—let us say, £10,000—and the consequence is that the leaseholders then have theirs reduced to £5,000. Who will pay the difference? As I say, introducing the idea of commonhold is an attractive way forward for property law—but only up to a point.
I am reminded that I have only one minute and have traversed but little territory. I apologise, but let me say this: despite being a Scot I cannot embrace the idea that Scotland has a better system. It has a different system, which traces its roots to the introduction of the feudal system by David I in the 14th century. There were proposals to abolish the feudal system in the 16th century but it took a further 500 years of consideration before that came about. However, the distinction is that real burdens could always be carried by property in Scotland—that is, perishable property title—because of the superiority. Even when that was abolished in 2003, real burdens could continue. It is not easy to compare the two systems because of the fundamental differences in property law and property title, so we can gain only little assistance from what happened there.
On consolidation, while the law is still in a state of flux, consolidation is not the way forward and therefore there are no proposals for it at present. On a review of the right to management, there seems no pressing reason for review. On commonholding, it is a voluntary scheme. It is open for the market to embrace it and perhaps there are steps that can be taken to encourage the market to do so. But as we have seen, the market finds it an unattractive offering despite all the efforts that were made to bring it to the market. It remains and will remain a voluntary scheme for those undertaking multi-unit development but we can see that it has not taken off at present. I apologise if I have overstayed my welcome and thank noble Lords for their attention.