| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
Mr. Ancram: Not necessarily by the Minister, but by others.
It is obvious that the Government do not believe that a Law Officer should sit on the Treasury Bench to deal with legal matters in Scotland. They do not have the excuse that they have no one who is appropriately qualified. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) is perfectly qualified to hold that position, but for reasons best known to themselves the Government decided that the Law Officer should speak in the other place. There is a question mark over the sincerity of their view of the importance of having the Lord Advocate in the Scottish Parliament to answer questions, because they have not adopted that position for this House.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled some good amendments that we would have supported, but we were told by the Minister that they were not acceptable. I am now used to the interventions of the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Is he right honourable?
Mr. Ancram:
Honourable but not right yet--that clarifies matters.
The hon. Gentleman seems to regard everything that is proposed, certainly by Conservatives, as part of a conspiracy to destroy the Scottish Parliament. I do not think for a moment that he believes that, because he has no interest in making the Scottish Parliament work. He wants it to fail so that we move towards independence. I suspect that he criticises our proposals because he believes that they give the Scottish Parliament a better chance of sustaining itself within a devolved system, which will ensure that it does not go down the slippery slope towards independence.
Mr. Salmond:
It is early days, but it seems that my point of view on the Scottish Parliament elections is doing rather better than that of the right hon. Gentleman. Does he not think that, if the Scottish Parliament works, and if people have confidence in that new institution, it will lead to a move towards independence?
Mr. Ancram:
The hon. Gentleman wants conflict and dispute between this House and a Scottish Parliament, because he believes that that will operate in favour of his ambitions and objectives. Throughout the referendum campaign, we argued that the creation of a Scottish Parliament would not diminish nationalism but would create a focus for it, and that nationalism would increase. If anything, the opinion polls show that our fears were right. The urbane reassurances that we were given by Labour Members are now seen for what they are.
The Minister gave us some interesting information about the clause. I thank him for that, because we learned much about the intentions behind the clause. However, he did not answer our questions on the amendments. On one amendment, he said that the matter could safely be left to the good sense of all concerned. It is not an answer to say that a provision need not be in the legislation because we can rely on the good sense of all concerned. I do not share his touching faith in human nature. People who want the Scottish Parliament to work would be wise not to rely on faith in human nature: they should ensure that the right statutory provisions are in place.
The Minister gave no reason why the Law Officers should be members of the Executive. He said that it was so that they could give legal advice on political events as they unfolded. Why can they not do that from outside the Executive, as do other legal advisers? They do not have to be part of what they are legally advising: in fact, their advice is often better for their not being part of it.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made two important points about the Advocate General. He asked what would happen if there were a dispute between the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General. We received a wittering answer that did not tell us whether there was a mechanism to resolve such a dispute, which would be very serious for the law of Scotland.
in answer to the question who would service the Advocate General's Department, we were told that civil servants would be made available. Where will they come from? The Crown Office? Will they be trained in Scottish law? Will they be seconded from among the civil servants who would otherwise look after the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General? We have no answers to those questions. Yet again, we are told that we must leave it to the good sense of all concerned. We are not prepared to leave such matters to the good sense of all concerned. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Dalyell:
To whom will the civil servants who work for the Advocate General be responsible? Are they part of the home civil service and ultimately responsible to its head, who is currently Sir Richard Wilson, or to the permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, or will they be responsible to the Scottish Parliament? That is an important question. Before we reach the later stages of the Bill, something more must be said about the possibility of a difference of opinion between the Advocate General and the Lord Advocate, because such a dispute is not so arcane, esoteric or hypothetical as we may suppose.
Mr. Wallace:
I want to take up some of the points raised by the Minister in response to amendments that I tabled. First, however, let me take up what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said when he was engaging in his bit of banter with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
I think that there will be a penalty to be paid by any party that tries to wreck the Scottish Parliament, and I do not think that it is in any party's interest to do so. That is why I want the Scottish Parliament to be as fully fledged as possible. I think that a measure that took away a wing of it by refusing to allow the principal Law Officer of
Scotland to be accountable to, or to be a Member of, the Scottish Parliament would give rise to conflict and frustration. I am not saying that that was the motive behind amendment No. 303, but I believe that it could be the consequence of it. If the right hon. Member for Devizes wants to know how the wrecking would happen, let me tell him that I think it would result from not having the Lord Advocate as a Minister in any Scottish Executive.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply, which was traditionally conservative with a small "c": "It has happened for years, and therefore it will go on happening." I take the Minister's point that we do not want to circumscribe the Scottish Parliament in too many ways, but he ought to accept that, far from circumscribing the Parliament by tradition--which, I think, is what he was trying to do--my amendments would open it up, making the pool from which the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General might be chosen somewhat wider than tradition would allow it to be. I do not intend to press the matter to the vote on this occasion, but I think that what was said will be noted.
I want to reserve our position on amendment No. 11, which relates to clause 82 and requires the Advocate General to be properly qualified in the law of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to the "good sense" of all concerned. When the Conservatives were in government, I used to apply what I have always considered to be a very good test: "How would you like the powers to be in the hands of the Opposition?" Does the Minister really think that the good sense of all concerned would necessarily be exercised in the right way if, as may happen, the Conservatives returned to office? After all, they have been in office before, and they may be again. Does the Minister trust the Conservatives to exercise good sense, or does he think that they may try to take a short cut?
In the case of the Advocate General, I do not think that we can rely on centuries of tradition, because there is no tradition. We are creating a new post. It will be an important post, because large areas of responsibility affecting Scotland will remain with the House of Commons, and we hope that the advice on Scottish law that the Government of the day are given will be of the best quality. I do not think that we can leave the matter to chance, good sense, good luck and good will.
Especially with regard to the Advocate General, we should not leave things to tradition. There is an old story about someone saying, "As from tomorrow, this college will have a new tradition." I think that the Minister was saying, "As from the time when the Bill is enacted and a Scottish Parliament is established, there will be the tradition of the Advocate General."
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
The hon. Gentleman speaks of changes in traditions. Is he aware that recently, when it came to breaking traditions in regard to legal matters, the Government decided to introduce special legislation so that, for the first time, a non-lawyer could become permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department? Is it not consistent with the hon. Gentleman's argument, rather than with the Government's argument, that in certain circumstances--
Mr. Wallace:
I was not aware of that. I have not been paying close attention to the machinations of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Perhaps I have read more in the press about the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper than about his permanent secretary. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, however: traditions can be overturned. One of my amendments would allow for the development of a tradition, but in the context that we are discussing there is no tradition, and I think that there ought to be rules. As I have said, we shall reserve our position in respect of clause 82.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |