Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand that racketeering is a matter for the criminal law. We may be told later that we should not separate out some matters from within the criminal law and put them into different categories. At the same time, the fighting of the rackets should be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and we should obtain as much co-operation as we can from the republic. We have had a good deal of co-operation in that matter in the past.

I am not sure whether I included too much in this single amendment. I seemed to receive support on the matter of trade marks and so forth. Perhaps if I had left that as a

27 Oct 1998 : Column 1858

separate amendment I would have received more. Units of measurement only draw attention to the differences that seem apparent when looked at in some respects.

On the other hand, in some ways I have been modest in only suggesting that the regulation of banks and building societies and other matters should be moved into the excepted category. I notice that the Scotland Bill is called in aid by the Minister from time to time and I am overcoming my inhibitions about referring to it myself. That excepts not only these matters, but also specifically fiscal, economic and monetary policy.

I hope we do not need to except fiscal, economic and monetary policy here. We are in the position that anything that is not specifically excepted or reserved is automatically transferred. Some people may read the Bill as automatically transferring fiscal, economic and monetary policy and all that goes with it to the Assembly from day one. I am sure that is not what the Government intend. However, having aired the subject, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 251:

Page 44, line 38, at end insert--
(" . Wireless telegraphy and the provision of programme services (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990).").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 251 seeks to move broadcasting from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2, broadly speaking. Therefore, I want to rely primarily on the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposition was put to him and received some support; that is, that broadcasting should be the responsibility of the Scotland parliament.

The Secretary of State for Scotland used the argument that the pace of technological development in broadcasting and the spread of services beyond national borders meant that it made sense to organise the regulatory and legislative framework at United Kingdom level. The implication was that it would become more so as technological advance takes us further in that field.

He also argued that there was little to devolve since the Government's involvement in broadcasting on a day-to-day basis was minimal. Acceptance of the amendment would not necessarily stop or advance the breaking up of the BBC into different pieces; as I understand it, a Northern Ireland broadcasting corporation, a Great Britain broadcasting corporation and, for that matter, a Scottish one as well, would ensure, in the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the regulatory and legislative framework remained at a UK level and was consistent throughout the UK. As we can all hear each other's broadcasts to a certain extent, that seems to be wise. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Dubs: For the reasons I have explained on several occasions this afternoon, there are a number of matters which are in the reserved field where we would wish to maintain the flexibility that the reserved field provides. These amendments would move

27 Oct 1998 : Column 1859

telecommunication matters into the excepted category. For the reasons I have just outlined, our preference is to keep them in the reserved field. I would therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. The government amendment updates the definition, including matters such as the Internet.

Perhaps I may add one further point about the reserved field. It has been made clear to your Lordships that the Assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, would be able to legislate in the reserved field. There might be occasions when the subject matter of proposed legislation would be partly in the reserved field and partly in the transferred field. One of the justifications for flexibility is that there would then be no constraint on the Secretary of State giving her consent and, indeed, the Assembly would then have no constraint in dealing with the matter. The point about flexibility has quite a wide bearing on a number of these amendments, including this one.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the Minister to mean that there might be occasions where legislation could be partly United Kingdom legislation and partly Assembly legislation to cover a certain point. If that is so, primary legislation would be required in the United Kingdom and permission could be given at that time for the Assembly to deal with its element of the matter.

However, the noble Lord has made out a case for flexibility and, at this stage of our discussions, I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 252:

Page 44, line 38, at end insert--
(" . Domicile.").

The noble Lord said: This is the last of this series of amendments, attempting fruitlessly to move, at least for today, matters from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2. This amendment concerns the matter of domicile.

I am not a lawyer, as I have made clear frequently in the past, but domicile comes into taxation, with which I have had something to do--both in a professional capacity as an accountant in days gone by, and when I had political responsibility for taxation. Domicile is a very important concept within tax law. Alongside residence and ordinary residence it can very much affect a person's tax liability and where it falls, whether within our jurisdiction or within somebody else's jurisdiction. It seems that it is a matter which, whatever other importance it may have, has a crucial importance in tax law and, as such, should not be in the reserved category but alongside the rest of the tax law within the excepted category.

I do not know whether domicile has any other great legal significance of which I am not aware, but, in so far as this is a tax matter, it should be excepted, just as the other matters to do with taxation are excepted.

Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I speak as a lawyer who has

27 Oct 1998 : Column 1860

some familiarity with tax law. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is familiar with it from the point of view of an accountant. As matters now stand, the main function of domicile in the law of the United Kingdom is to determine the extent of liability to certain kinds of tax, in particular income tax. It therefore seems to be wholly inconsistent to treat domicile as a reserved matter while taxation, under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2, is an excepted matter.

The other field in which domicile is significant--in fact there is an entirely different test for a domicile in this matter--is under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, which applies in the United Kingdom the Brussels and Lugano Conventions on the jurisdiction of the courts of the various member states of the European Union and the European Economic Area. That test of domicile seems to be--again, a matter within paragraph 3 of Schedule 2--a matter of international relations, and in particular international treaties. There again, the treatment of domicile as a reserved matter, where international treaties is an excepted matter, seems wholly inconsistent. Between now and Report stage, will the Government look again at the treatment of domicile?

Lord Dubs: The argument I shall put forward will be the same as I have put forward on other occasions in relation to other amendments. We do not intend that the Assembly should have the power to change the law of domicile as it applies to tax matters. That would generally bring any such legislation into the excepted field. However, in view of the points that have been made this afternoon, will the noble Lord consider withdrawing his amendment to give me time to reflect upon it? If my reflection does not alter my opinion, I will give him good notice and he can bring the amendment forward again. I would like to consider it because I am not sure that I have dealt with all the key points that have been raised.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: That seems to be a very fair offer. The Minister also said that, so far as the use of domicile for tax purposes is concerned, he believes that it is already an excepted matter as a result of the other taxation provisions.

Lord Dubs: We would prefer to keep domicile in the reserve category. If I said otherwise it was a slip of the tongue. As I said, I would like to reflect on the points that have been made this afternoon. It may be that I cannot change my mind, but at least I would like time to think about them.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I entirely understand that the Minister needs time to reflect and take advice. I thought I understood the Minister to say that, in so far as domicile affects taxation matters, the fact that taxation matters are excepted under other provisions means that it is, in any case, excepted in that capacity. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister. I do not wish to press the matter in view of the fact that he will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

27 Oct 1998 : Column 1861

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Reserved matters]:

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page