Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is very similar to one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, at an earlier stage of the Bill. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, as I hope I reassured the noble Earl, that the amendment is entirely unnecessary. I agree that it is important that the Judicial Committee should have sufficient resources to carry out its duties properly. There is no need to prescribe that on the face of the Bill. The Government of the day will, of course, want to make sure that the Judicial Committee is properly resourced, as is the case currently. I have now given that assurance for the second time.

Perhaps I may take the opportunity to reply to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, when we discussed this matter earlier. He asked whether members are paid for sitting on the committee. I should like to reassure him that they are. Retired judges and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are paid a daily rate of £622 before tax if they sit on the board of the Judicial Committee. It is considered to be part of the duties of serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. We would expect expenses incurred to be reimbursed--for example, if the Judicial Committee sat in Edinburgh.

On that basis, perhaps the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before my noble friend indicates his intention, I thank the noble Lord for the additional information which he has given. I am sure that it will be of great interest to those who will, in the fullness of time, be qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, it may perhaps be of even more interest to those who are not qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]

Clause 97 [Power to make provision consequential on Acts of the Scottish Parliament]:

[Amendment No. 202YA not moved.]

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 202ZA:

Page 45, line 11, at end insert ("or made by legislation mentioned in subsection (2).

2 Nov 1998 : Column 110

(2) The legislation is subordinate legislation under an Act of Parliament made by--
(a) a member of the Scottish Executive,
(b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions, or
(c) any other person (not being a Minister of the Crown) if the function of making the legislation is exercisable within devolved competence.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the earlier comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that when I refer to "technical amendments" his ears prick up, I shall not say that Amendment No. 202ZA is a minor and technical amendment, although in fact it is. Clause 97 allows provision to be made by subordinate legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It could be used, for example, to make provision in English law to complement something done in an Act of the Scottish Parliament which, because of Clause 28(2)(a), could not amend English law. This might be necessary to provide for cross-border enforcement of a provision in an ASP.

Similar principles apply to subordinate legislation made by Scottish Ministers under powers which transfer to them and by others such as the Registrar General. This amendment therefore extends the power in Clause 97 so that the consequences of such subordinate legislation can be dealt with. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving that clear explanation of why this minor and technical amendment is required. One of the advantages of having a second revising Chamber is that one has many opportunities to table such amendments. I can well understand why this is required and I have absolutely no objection to it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 99 [Power to adapt functions]:

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 202A:

Page 46, line 4, at end insert--
("( ) If subordinate legislation under this section modifies a function of observing or implementing such an obligation under Community law so that the function to be transferred to the Scottish Ministers relates only to achieving so much of the result to be achieved under the obligation as is specified in the legislation, references in sections 28(2)(d) and 53(2) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to Community law are to be read as including references to the requirement to achieve that much of the result.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall take a little longer to move this amendment than immediate previous amendments. Clause 99 includes a power for an Order in Council, or an order made by a Minister of the Crown, to provide that certain functions can be exercised separately in or as regards Scotland or within devolved competence. Among other things, this will enable the United Kingdom Government to split an international or European Community obligation which is expressed in quantitative terms, such as a target or ratio, in order to facilitate the transfer of part of that obligation to the Scottish Ministers. It also contains provision to ensure that the Secretary of State's powers of intervention under Clause 54 will be available to enforce the Scottish share of an international obligation.

2 Nov 1998 : Column 111

As we indicated to the House at Committee stage, we have been considering whether anything more is required to ensure that the Scottish Ministers implement the Scottish share of a quantitative Community obligation. An example would be an EC quota for livestock subsidies. Noble Lords will recall that for the purposes of the Bill a Community obligation does not fall within the definition of an international obligation. Compliance by the Scottish Parliament and Ministers with Community law more generally would be a devolution issue in relation to which proceedings might be taken by the Law Officers. However, the Scottish share of a Community obligation which has been apportioned using Clause 99 might not itself be thought to be part of Community law. Government Amendment No. 202A deals with this problem. It provides that the references to Community law in Schedule 6, Clause 28(2)(d) and Clause 53(2) are to be read as including references to the requirement to achieve the Scottish share of such an obligation. The effect is that where the Scottish share of a quantitative EC obligation is transferred to the Scottish Ministers it will be regarded as a matter of Community law and can be enforced on the same basis as any other function of the Scottish Ministers in observing and implementing a Community obligation. This is in line with the approach which is adopted in the Government of Wales Act.

This amendment is necessary to complete the provisions which ensure that compliance by the Scottish Ministers with quantitative international and EC quotas can be enforced. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I became slightly lost in the middle of the explanation given by the Minister, although I believe that that was more my fault than his. Possibly I should read what he said. However, as this is Report stage it is more difficult to do that. As I understand the Minister, if for example the Community came to an agreement about pollution emissions which were divided up by a formula--I may have missed what that formula might be--between Scotland and England, Scotland would have to take whatever its share might be of the emissions reduction. But what if the English position was that they were putting out more of the foul substances than a comparative Scottish plant, in other words, the Scottish plant was cleaner than the English plant? The Scottish plant would still have to take a proportionate hit, so to speak, which might be much more difficult to achieve.

Perhaps I am missing something here but I think that there is a problem. This is more of a Committee point but these amendments have come forward on Report. I am not sure whether I can think of an example relating to fishing as it has already been divided into sea areas. Therefore I believe that that will be acceptable. I am concerned with emissions. I am reluctant to go too far into coal burn but electricity plants in Scotland on coal burn are perhaps cleaner than some comparative English plants. But they may have to take a bigger hit, which will be more difficult to achieve than, for example, making the

2 Nov 1998 : Column 112

same savings in England. If the noble Lord cannot help me off the top of his head, perhaps he would write to me on that matter.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord responds, my noble friend has a good point. The issue of emissions is something to which I have referred previously. The exact allocation of responsibilities regarding emissions, whether under EU legislation or international obligation, is as yet unclear to me. The point of my intervention is to put down a marker for the last stage which we shall come to in this Bill. As I understand it, as far as electricity is concerned--not just the generation but the transmission--that is something which will remain the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament.

My further understanding is that as matters stand at present, those powers vested in the Secretary of State where it applies in Scotland are exercised not by the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not clear at present as to where these responsibilities are to be divided. Will we see those powers, where they are to be applied in Scotland, exercised by some department other than the Secretary of State for Scotland, so long as he continues to be, or are they to be exercised by some other Secretary of State elsewhere in the Whitehall empire?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page