Previous SectionIndexHome Page


War Memorials Preservation

Mr. David Maclean accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the preservation of war memorials; to ensure their proper transfer to a suitable location if their present site is redeveloped; to amend the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act 1923; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 120].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),


Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,


Following is the report of the Business Committee [9 February]:


    That it had come to a further Resolution in respect of the Scotland Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House:


    That the Resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 22nd January be varied so that--


    (a) the third to eighth days allotted under the Order[13th January] to proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, and


    (b) each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in the third column of the Table.


    TABLE
    Allotted dayProceedings in Committee Time for conclusion of proceedings
    Third dayClause 41 Clauses 42 to 47 Clauses 48 to 53 Clauses 54 to 60 6.00 p.m. 7.00 p.m. 8.30 p.m. 10.00 p.m.
    Fourth dayClause 61 (up to and including the word "determine" in subsection (2) ) 7.00 p.m.
    Clause 61 (remaining proceedings) Clause 62 Clauses 63 to 68 8.45 p.m. 10.00 p.m.
    Fifth to eighth daysRemaining proceedings (according to time limits to be determined by a further report or further reports of the Business Committee) 10.00 p.m. on the eighth day

10 Feb 1998 : Column 160

Orders of the Day

Scotland Bill

[3rd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 29 January].

[Mr. Michael J. Martin in the Chair]

Clause 41

The Scottish Executive

4.31 pm

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 18, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert--


'(1A) Any devolved Law Officer shall not be a member of the Scottish Executive'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 274, in page 18, line 10, at end add--


'(3) The Solicitor General for Scotland shall be the law officer to the Scottish Executive'.

No. 10, in clause 45, page 19, line 24, at end insert--


'(1A) The Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland shall be qualified as either
(i) an advocate, or
(ii) a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.'.

No. 314, in page 19, line 25, after 'Advocate', insert


'or by an official or agent appointed by and responsible to him'.

Clause 45 stand part.

Government amendment No. 321.

No. 289, in clause 59, page 25, line 6, after 'Ministers', insert


'or the Scottish Law Officers'.

No. 290, in page 25, line 9, after 'Ministers', insert


'or the Scottish Law Officers'.

No. 11, in clause 82, page 37, line 40, at end insert--


'(1A) The Advocate General for Scotland shall be qualified as either
(i) an advocate, or
(ii) a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.'.

No. 12, in page 38, line 5, after 'writing', add


', provided that the office shall not be vacant for a period of more than one month.'.

Mr. Ancram: Amendment No. 303 is an important amendment which we are debating with several other amendments. Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 do not relate to the main purpose of my argument and I shall deal with them briefly by saying that they seek to ensure that provision for the transfer of functions, which we shall debate later in Committee, should apply to the Law Officers as much as to other Ministers of the Scottish Executive if the other amendments in my name fail. That would make sense in those circumstances.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Ministers of the Scottish Executive.

10 Feb 1998 : Column 161

Does he include junior Ministers, because there is some confusion over whether they are included in the term "Ministers of the Scottish Executive"? That may be a pedantic point, but it arises from the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: It is a good point and it will be relevant when we consider the functions of Ministers in other groups of amendments that we will discuss later today. The hon. Gentleman will have gathered from our amendments that we think that it is highly questionable whether there should be a plethora of Ministers in Scotland to do the job that is now being done by the Secretary of State for Scotland, two Ministers of State and three junior colleagues. However, I do not wish to steal the thunder of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who will move those amendments in due course. I merely wished to take amendments Nos. 289 and 290 out of the argument that I am making now, because it is right to concentrate on the matter in hand.

Amendments Nos. 303 and 274 would mean that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Solicitor-General would be members of the Scottish Executive, and also that only the Solicitor General would be a Law Officer to the Executive. This is a matter of substantial importance to us. It has a legal aspect as well as a constitutional aspect, and it is important that we consider it carefully.

In paragraph 4.8, the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament" accepted that there was something different about Law Officers and the Lord Advocate in particular, and said:


That independence really causes us concern in relation to the amendments before us and the Bill as it stands.

The amendments seek to do two things. The first is to try to achieve a situation where the Law Officers are not part of the Scottish Executive. We believe especially that it is wrong in principle to devolve the office of Lord Advocate, because he is, as the White Paper says, an independent public prosecutor, and as such he must act at all times in the public interest of the whole United Kingdom, not the Scottish public interest alone.

It is important to realise that the Lord Advocate, in whatever guise, will continue to be responsible for the prosecution of offences enacted by both Parliaments. Many crimes--such as those involving drugs, firearms and Customs and Excise matters--will be reserved matters on which the Lord Advocate will prosecute, and do not fall solely within the matters that will be in the control of the Scottish Parliament.

Therefore, we believe that the role that the Lord Advocate will perform, having a United Kingdom dimension, is not recognised in the legislation as it stands and, indeed, would be precluded by clause 41(1)(c), which we seek to remove from the Bill, which states that the Scottish Executive shall also have as its members


Interestingly, in 1978, the importance of the United Kingdom dimension was recognised, and the position of Lord Advocate was not devolved for very much those reasons. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) remembers some of the debates that took place at that time.

10 Feb 1998 : Column 162

It may be useful to illustrate the point with hypothetical examples. There could be a case where a Westminster Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency was to be prosecuted for electoral improprieties after devolution. [Interruption.] The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office smiles and laughs, as though he believes that it could never happen. I suspect that he might like to reconsider whether he is wise to so mock that example.

Let us say that a procedural blunder occurs, the prosecution founders and the Member of Parliament is acquitted on a technicality. In those circumstances, no Member of Parliament or peer at Westminster would be able to call any Minister to account for that, although it would affect the membership of the House, because there remains no ministerial responsibility at Westminster for the Scottish prosecution service. We need to think very carefully about that.

We might also consider the case of the Lockerbie bombing. The United Kingdom public interest would loom large in any prosecution that might take place in Scotland. If the case were ever to come to trial, evidence would be given by members of United Kingdom agencies such as the intelligence services and the forensic science services. I pose the question to the Minister: would it not be wrong in principle for a situation to be created whereby no accountability would be reserved to Westminster for the conduct of what might be one of the most prominent trials of all time?


Next Section

IndexHome Page