My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for their contributions to this debate. Although technical, the points they raised are important. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Maclennan that a similar thought crossed my mind as to the necessity for this. The truth of the matter is that it is specified by the Scotland Act that some orders under it can be approved by way of negative procedure, but when dealing with amendments to primary legislation, Parliament in its wisdom in 1998 thought that that should be done by affirmative order. Indeed, it would be invidious to decide which ones were or were not controversial. On the previous order we considered there was agreement on all sides that it nevertheless related to changing the powers of officers of the UK Border Agency and HMRC with regard to periods of detention, which is a substantive matter. It might be invidious to try to make judgments as to which orders are controversial and which are not when they all come under the same Section 104.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, it is perfectly proper that he should be aware and alert—as he said, he was not called Thomas for nothing. I can assure him that as far as I am aware, and as far as we could trace, no body involved in this order would be involved in elections or referendums. One could perhaps use one’s imagination as to how Creative Scotland could be creative. However, strictly speaking, no body would have responsibility for the running of a referendum or election—subject to the example I gave in respect of care home managers. However, the important point is that the order updates the situation that already existed. The noble Lord’s other point was about court officers. I am advised that under the order, none of them would have a role to play in election work.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose raised a question about Welsh measures. I am assured that it is an exact translation—although I have to say that I have to take it on assurance because I do not speak Welsh. It is probably a Measure of the Welsh National Assembly that is referred to here. Regarding some of the reciprocal arrangements between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, what has been done in Scotland has implications in Wales. If the Welsh legislation is in Welsh, the amendment to it has to be in Welsh also. That is the explanation. As I said, I take that on trust because, regrettably, although I speak in this House for the Wales Office, I do not have Welsh.
I hope that with those explanations the order will commend itself to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Modifications of Enactments) Order 2011
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2011.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Modifications of Enactments) Order 2011.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c34-5GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:48:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_773631
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_773631
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_773631