Scotland Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McAvoy]

63: Clause 54, page 53, line 38, after “operator” insert “or not for profit operator”

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

I am so used to my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson speaking for me that I almost mistimed rising to move this amendment, which would allow for the scrutiny and review of previous tendering arrangements. Amendments 63 and 64 in this group stand in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson of Glen Clova. They are minor but important amendments, which would alter Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 by removing the prohibition on public sector operators bidding for a franchise in relation to a Scottish franchise agreement. They would also establish legislative review and evaluation procedures.

The Smith commission report states that,

“power will be devolved to the Scottish Government to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish Ministers”.

The amendment would go a small but significant step beyond that by allowing not-for-profit operators also to bid in the process, echoing what the right honourable Gordon Brown proposed prior to the referendum. The Scottish Government are already responsible for letting and funding the ScotRail franchise. The legal framework for letting the franchise is provided by the Railways Act 1993, the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005. These collectively preclude state-controlled organisations from bidding for franchises.

The paradox is, however, that state-controlled bodies from other countries are not precluded from holding a franchise. Members of your Lordships’ House will no doubt be aware that as a result of this anomaly, Abellio, an offshoot of the Dutch national state railway, was recently awarded the ScotRail franchise by the Scottish Government. A number of concerns were raised in response to this decision, not least from trade unions because, given the forthcoming proposals outlined in the Bill, the tendering process could have been delayed, after which the franchise could have been awarded to a public or not-for-profit operator. There has been a number of problems, most notably the cancellation of services after pay talks with the train drivers’ union ASLEF stalled and staff being offered voluntary redundancy despite Abellio guaranteeing that this would not happen. As the general secretary of the RMT has said:

“Scotland could have taken control of its own railways”.

Labour has stated that it believes that:

“The best deal for Scotland is a People’s ScotRail, a railway company whose commitment is not to a group of shareholders or a foreign Government, but to the people of Scotland”.

In the light of this evidence it is vital that while we move forward in the devolution process we learn from the decisions that were taken in the past. The amendment would facilitate this by allowing the scrutiny and review of previous tendering decisions, not to cause any uncertainty or rock the boat in any way but to learn lessons from how things were conducted. I believe that this is a genuine opportunity to enshrine in legislation the value of critical evaluation in the decision-making process. I beg to move.

[Lord Dunlop]

It is nice to welcome back to the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. Clause 54, to put it simply, will allow public sector operators to bid for and be awarded rail franchises specified and let by the Scottish Ministers. This will provide greater freedom to decide which organisations are eligible to bid for franchises in Scotland and fulfil the Scottish Government’s aspiration to allow public sector operators to participate in the rail franchising market in Scotland. At present, and as with the rest of the UK, not-for-profit entities are not precluded from being rail franchises under the Railways Act 1993. Once Clause 54 is commenced, not-for-profit entities, irrespective of whether they are public or private organisations, will be able to bid for rail franchises, just as other public sector operators will also be able to. As such, the Government do not consider that Amendment 63 is necessary.

Amendment 64 would allow discretion as to whether public sector operators, on commencement of Clause 54, can bid in respect of live procurements where an invitation to tender has already been issued. There are currently no live procurements for Scottish rail franchises. There are two current Scottish franchises: the Caledonian Sleeper services and the ScotRail services. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to manage the tendering of these contracts. The ScotRail franchise, for example, the biggest in Scotland, operates over 2,200 train services each day, delivering 92 million passenger journeys each year. In December, it announced a £475 million investment in its rolling stock over three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dunlop]

I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that we will get clarification. I am happy to write to him on that.

To complete what I was saying, the ScotRail franchise has a break clause after five years, but in practice that means that a new competition for either Scottish rail franchise will not occur until 2020 at the earliest. For those reasons, the Government consider Amendment 64 to be unnecessary and that it would only add uncertainty to the clause. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord McAvoy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I particularly welcome his indication of interest from the Scottish Government in discussions and negotiations. That shows that sensible and calm negotiations—not looking for aggressiveness on either side—will deliver to the Scottish Parliament and therefore the Scottish Government the powers that he just outlined. That is an important statement to come out tonight.

A couple of things tonight could almost have been interpreted as doubting the ability of the Scottish people to run the services proposed for devolution in the Bill and hopefully in the fiscal framework—time after time. It is a little insulting to the Scottish people to suggest that we cannot run services in a proper and efficient manner. Doubt has been cast on that, denigrating the ability to come forward and run these things. So I welcome the Minister’s statement and the positive notes coming from the Scottish Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

had certain obligations relating to the,

“competence of the Scottish Parliament”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us turn to the next two new subsections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord McAvoy]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

Amendment 73A says that:

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in Committee on the Scotland Bill. I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has also put his name to the amendment.

I support Amendment 73C, requiring the preparation of a report reviewing the impact of Parts 2 to 5 of the Bill on the areas adjoining Scotland, particularly Cumbria and the north-east of England. Having been born and bred in Northumberland, I naturally have a vested interest in its economic welfare, and I am concerned when I suspect that legislation such as this may indirectly, but perhaps significantly, disadvantage the north-east. I was a member of the Adonis review team, which was commissioned to look at the economy of the north-east of England. As a consequence, I am critically aware of the interdependencies between Scotland and the north-east of England.

According to the Scottish Government’s figures, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has already cited, £1,200 more per capita of public expenditure is spent in Scotland than in England. The Bill will allow further investment in Scotland, which is good for Scotland—like my colleagues, I do not oppose the Bill—but the consequence could be that the gap becomes even wider, to the economic detriment of the north-east. This is serious in view of the fact that many of the social indicators, geographic challenges and historic dependence on heavy industries are very similar in the north-east of England to those in Scotland.

Not only does the north-east receive some of the lowest funding in England, it borders Scotland, which has the highest spend per capita in the United Kingdom due to the Barnett formula, which will have increased benefits as a consequence of the Bill. The current irrelevance of the Barnett formula has been widely recognised, even by Lord Barnett himself, who called it “grossly unfair” and called for it to be scrapped. It was deeply regrettable that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking at the time of the Scottish independence referendum not to review it. I believe that it should be reviewed and that it is now unavoidable and overdue, and that will become even more apparent if an economic report was prepared and published after one year, as we have suggested in this amendment.

I fully understand that the north-east is included in the northern powerhouse concept. As noble Lords know, we in the north-east have constantly to remind Whitehall that the northern region does not end in Manchester, York or Leeds. Even if the investment promised in the northern powerhouse materialises, it will not compensate for the shortfall in public expenditure. So the north-east is still expected to compete with both Scotland and much of England, despite receiving much lower public support. The noble Lord has mentioned the potential impact on the airport in Newcastle. One could not conceive of a situation where London Stansted was granted special favour over Heathrow—yet that is exactly what may happen between Edinburgh and Newcastle.

I expect the Minister to counter our arguments by referencing the devolution agreement for the north-east. This is very welcome and a huge step forward, but it does not compensate for the differential in funding between the north-east, Scotland and much of England. The north-east is proud of its history; it is making good progress in reducing unemployment and increasing economic growth, but it could contribute even more to the overall economy of the United Kingdom, given a more level playing field. For these reasons, I support this amendment, and I hope that it will be supported by the Minister.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I rise to congratulate my noble friend Lady Quin, who is a long-standing friend of Scotland, and tonight has epitomised concerns not only for her own north-east homeland and heartland but also of her fellow citizens in Scotland. She has been a great supporter of Scottish causes throughout the years and a doughty champion for her own north-east area. It is a tribute to her commitment to both these areas that she has been here so long waiting patiently—or maybe impatiently—as the night wore on.

As was the case on the first day in Committee, on the face of it a review is reasonable enough. I accept that these are probing amendments, but we have mild objections on the grounds that they afford no agency to the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the parties to be consulted and the general scope and remit of the review, and it is generally left to the discretion of Secretary of State. When there is a lack of parameters or involvement with the Scottish Parliament, that provides the Secretary of State with considerable scope to set the terms of any convention and what is reviewed.

We think that the answer, or at least part of it, lies in the constitutional convention that we support, which would involve every nation and region in the country being engaged in a dialogue with the people about how power needs to be dispersed, not just in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but in England, too. Quite rightly, there are concerns, particularly in the north-east and Cumbria, and maybe in other parts of England as well, that there is no detriment to their areas with the passing of more devolution to the Scottish Parliament. It is quite right that these concerns are raised; they are representing their areas well in bringing these concerns.

I do not know the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that well, but I certainly know my noble friend and know that she will be motivated. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, it is a concern not just for one side of the border but for both sides so that we can all come to a mutual way of working and find forums for agreeing matters of dispute or interest, or problems causing particular tension. I welcome the discussion from both my noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I commend both of them for bringing this forward for discussion.

[Lord Dunlop]

First, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said about the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who I know to be a doughty champion for the north-east. I support the sentiment behind the amendment; Governments should always consider the impact on the union and, in particular, the economy, when they make decisions. Likewise, before and after making policy, Governments should as a matter of course assess whether any particular region is impacted disproportionately. That is not just my view; it is this Government’s stated policy and our approach in practice. Not only that, but there are opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise the Government as they do this and hold us to account. I welcome and encourage that scrutiny.

The UK Government have considered carefully the impact of devolution on the union as a whole throughout the development process for this Bill. The commission set up by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, had that at its heart. One of the principles under which the commission operated was to,

“not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts”.

As the Committee will be aware, the UK Government and the Smith commission rejected candidates for devolution—for example, the devolution of national insurance. I believe it is right that they did, precisely because devolution of such areas could undermine the union. However, the UK Government also believe that devolution to the Scottish Parliament will make it more accountable to the people who elect it. Our objective has always been to encourage that accountability without undermining the union. Let me reassure the Committee that this Government do not require a legal requirement in the Scotland Bill to ensure that we take these considerations into account.

I hope I can give similar reassurance on how the UK Government consider the impact of policy-making on specific regions and locations. This Government are committed to rebalancing growth across the country, from creating a northern powerhouse to strengthening our great city regions. A number of noble Lords mentioned this. To give a specific example, the UK Government are well aware of the potential impact of the devolution of air passenger duty. That is why we have issued a discussion paper and consultation to engage stakeholders and find a workable solution. There are procedures in place. These policies are scrutinised in Parliament and open to challenge, especially in the other place where MPs can represent their constituency interests in Parliament.

The noble Baroness suggested joint working on projects on both sides of the border. I entirely agree with that sentiment. The borderlands initiative is a good example of that sort of work. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised reporting. I am very happy to look at it as a subject and at how it could be further improved. I am always happy to meet, and I would be very happy to meet him.

While I fully support the sentiment behind these amendments, I do not believe requirements in legislation are necessary. The UK Government are committed to this approach. The fiscal framework and how we put into practice the no-detriment principle were raised by a number of noble Lords. I am certain that we will return to them on our next day in Committee. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.