Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Steel of Aikwood and Lord McAvoy

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments. We particularly welcome those relating to pavement parking and recognise that the others are largely technical in nature. We are therefore more than happy to support them.

The amendments on pavement parking reflect amendments which this side of the House tabled both in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House and which were welcomed honourably by the Minister. The work of the organisations, Living Streets and Guide Dogs Scotland, was invaluable and I extend my thanks to them.

I know that in the grand scheme of things the amendments might be regarded as minor, but they are important to a big section of our community. Pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians, especially people with sight loss, parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users and other disabled people. People with sight loss are particularly affected, as they can be forced into oncoming traffic which they cannot see. A survey by Guide Dogs Scotland showed that 97% of blind or partially sighted people encounter problems with street obstructions and some 90% of them had experienced trouble with a pavement-parked car. Pavements are not designed to take the weight of vehicles, and cars cause paving to crack and tarmac to subside. This damage makes pavements uneven, creating a trip hazard for pedestrians, particularly blind and partially sighted people. I know that the cost of repairing pavements is a parochial issue, but it is a burden for local authorities, which in Scotland are under particular pressure as a result of government cuts—SNP Government cuts, I hasten to add. We are therefore glad that the Scottish Government now have the necessary legislative competence to put measures in place to prevent this happening. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and welcome the amendments.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, before the Minister responds perhaps I could repeat a point I made in Committee about Clauses 40 to 42 and Schedule 2, and the amendments that the Minister has rightly laid before us today. I am emboldened to do so by a phone call from the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is a former constituent of mine. He wanted me to make it clear that there was never any risk of him voting for me, but on this issue we speak with one voice.

Those of us who live in the borders, whether on the Scottish or the English side, are naturally concerned about the growth of what appear to be quite minor changes in legislation concerning parking, traffic signs, speed limits, vehicle regulations and even the drink-driving laws. There is a danger that these regulations will become self-aggrandising. We have different regulations just for the sake of having different regulations. We find ourselves having to make journeys by road that cover both jurisdictions, and it is extremely confusing if there are too many regulations that differ. The point I want to put to the Minister is this. He referred several times to discussions between the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government. Can we be assured that those discussions will continue so that we can seek to minimise the differences in regulations on each side of the border?

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Steel of Aikwood and Lord McAvoy

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his staff for keeping me fully informed at an early date, allowing me to consider what is proposed in more detail. I hope that this mini-debate will be far less interesting and contentious than the one two debates ago. There is agreement here. The Opposition are fully behind what the Government are doing. I suppose that some comments could be made about the 50-year proposal, although I think the possibility of that lessens with the change of First Minister. I say that jokingly, of course, in case anybody in the Scottish press gets excited about any perceived attack on Mr Salmond—God forbid.

Certainly, the proposal is firmly within the Smith commission agreement, which the Official Opposition fully support. There are exceptions, which have been outlined by the Minister, and we go along with those as well. The two-thirds majority safeguard is absolutely right. As the Scottish Parliament goes on and gains more experience, it would be entirely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that there is a possibility of it behaving in a manner that, quite rightly, was posited by the Minister as being something that none of us want. Certainly, the Scottish Parliament is growing in experience. The people of Scotland and the United Kingdom should remember that the concept of a Scottish parliament was bitterly opposed by the Conservative Party at the time. We are absolutely delighted at the major conversion of the Government to the principle of a Scottish Parliament. In fairness to the Government, we believe that they are sticking by the terms of the Smith commission to deliver as much as possible to the Scottish Parliament in these devolved matters.

I reiterate that we are fully behind what the Government are doing. In serious terms, the maturity of the Scottish Parliament is growing. That can only be good for relations in Scotland itself and for the very important matter of relations between any Scottish Government out of Holyrood and the United Kingdom Parliament. I repeat again, we are fully behind the measure.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, support the order. I welcome the Advocate-General’s introduction of it. My mind goes back to the passage of the 1998 Bill through this House. At that time, I tried to move amendments that would have covered exactly the issues we are debating today. I am sorry to say that I did not get any support from the Labour Government, or indeed from the Conservative Opposition at that time. It struck me as odd that we were establishing a new Parliament in Scotland, yet this Parliament was going to continue to control that Parliament’s internal affairs. That seemed to me to be wrong. I was reinforced in that view when I took office as the first Presiding Officer at the Scottish Parliament and found that silly things such as the number of Deputy Presiding Officers we were allowed to have was laid down by this Parliament—that we could do nothing to make any internal changes. I therefore welcome the order. The Smith commission was very clear in stating that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to its own elections and,

“powers to make decisions about all matters relating to the arrangements and operations of the Scottish Parliament”.

That seems to me to be common sense. I very much welcome it.

If we leave this order as it is, it is open to the Scottish Parliament to change the predicted date of a Scottish Parliament election. I have tried to work it out. I hope that my arithmetic is correct, but if we leave things as they are and the Westminster Parliament is on a fixed basis of elections every five years and the Scottish Parliament is on a fixed basis of every four years, every 20 years there will be a clash. The Scottish Parliament would therefore have to use the powers in the order to make the changes. In the light of that, it would be sensible if the Scottish Parliament were to reflect on the fact that we have a fixed-term Parliament here and in Scotland, and that it would make more sense for the fixed term to be the same so that the dates do not clash at any time. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide in the future. In the mean time, I thank the Advocate-General for the introduction of this change to Schedules 4 and 5 to the original Act and I give it a full welcome.