Lord Stephen
Member of the House of Lords · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“He worked very closely with George Robertson, now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with Donald Dewar and then, after Donald’s tragic death, with Jack McConnell, now the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Jim had enormous respect for them all.”
“I first met Jim Wallace 43 years ago. I recognised him. He was standing at a bus stop outside the Station Hotel in Aberdeen. He was a 28 year-old newly elected Member of Parliament. I was a 23 year-old Liberal councillor. He had no idea who I was, but I introduced myself and offered him a lift to his public meeting. Off we went.”
“They always called him Uncle Jim, and he would sing along to “Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree”, with the dance steps and the hand movements—I have the video. The low point in our relationship came in May 2000, when Jim presented the Scottish Cup to his team, Rangers, after they narrowly defeated my team, Aberdeen, 4-0.”
“Look only at his 18 years in the House of Commons as MP for Orkney and Shetland, as Chief Whip and in many Front-Bench roles. Then he spent 19 years in this House from 2007 until last week, as Minister and law officer, Advocate-General for Scotland, leader of the Liberal Democrats here and a year as Moderator of the General Assembly, when…”
“Obviously, out of respect, he said he resisted the temptation to sing anything with the words Nanannan. Jim embodied the very best of politics, the very best of people He was courteous, collegiate and consensual, but with a strong and persuasive voice. He combined kindness with humility, authority with deep humanity.”
“Jim was about friendships, across all parties and places, about values and faith, and about family—most of all about family, Rosie and Helen and Clare, his brother Neil and, of course, his grandchildren Catriona, Ella and Adam. “It’s very special”, he said to me recently, “being a grandfather”.”
The complete record
Every one of 308 lines we hold for Lord Stephen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“None of the major changes we are seeing in energy infrastructure in the United Kingdom and many other developed nations would be happening without huge intervention and commitment from government. In many aspects, the Energy Bill will deliver exactly the sort of change we are all hoping for but not in relation to storage where much more needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, was exactly right that when these big targets for renewable energy were first set storage was seen as a vital issue if they were to be introduced. They can also be achieved through a mixed basket of renewable energies, not all of which are intermittent in the way that wind and solar energy are. Storage is not rocket science; it is not so uncharted. We are aware of the technologies right here and now: the issue is how to deploy them sensibly.”
“We have touched on a very interesting area but we can all agree that a strategy is a very good thing here. Even the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, thought that a strategy was a good idea. Sometimes in government you have to be bold and ambitious in setting strategy and, sometimes, in setting targets. I take the point made by the noble Baroness about the importance of outcomes and not micromanaging. If the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, had been given John F Kennedy’s speech about sending a man to the moon by the end of the decade, he would probably have set it to one side and declined to go for it. Sometimes we have to be ambitious and we are dealing with very important change that needs to be driven by government.”
“We want to remove that wording and find a way—the Government may have another way than the one I am suggesting today—of allowing investors to have confidence to do their internal rate of return calculations and to get clarity on the value they are creating by investing in projects over the next couple of years. That is it. It is as simple as that. It would risk current investment in technologies if developers were unable to have confidence that the rate of return and the rate of support they would get during the lifetime of the scheme could be relied upon. These changes will ensure that we can continue to drive investment in renewables through the transition scheme to 2020, minimising any hiatus in investment before the contracts for difference regime is fully up and running. I beg to move.”
“You have to turn quite a few pages from the beginning of Clause 46, but you only need to start reading that subsection on page 40 to see why it might start to strike fear into the hearts of investors because it authorises the Secretary of State to, “review the banding provision at such intervals as are specified in or determined in accordance with the order, and … may authorise the Secretary of State to review the whole or any part of the banding provision at any time when the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the specified conditions is satisfied”. In other words, it gives wide discretion to the Secretary of State to change bandings and rates in a way which would make investors think of Spain rather than the United Kingdom.”
“It aims to ensure that when making a certificate purchase order, the Secretary of State is guided by the principle of equivalence between the regimes, thereby providing continuity and certainty to generators by replicating the accreditation status and the banding arrangements of the RO. My second amendment would remove subsection (8) from proposed new Section 32V.”
“This leaves uncertainty regarding the value of existing RO projects and threatens the investment decisions being made presently. It is critical to the investors to whom I have referred, who are making decisions now or soon, that the policy intention to provide grandfathering is reflected in the Bill rather than in secondary legislation. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on this point, but it may be as long as two years before there is clarity and certainty if the secondary legislation route is adopted. My amendments to Clause 46 therefore aim to create the certainty required in regard to the entitlement and the value of certificates. My first amendment would set within the Bill the Government’s policy aim to give generators certainty over the incentive they receive.”
“I think many of us here would rather that it had all happened two, three or even more years ago so that it did not happen at exactly the same time as this huge growth in offshore renewables. However, we must make the best of the situation and do everything in our power to achieve these targets. For projects accredited under the outgoing renewables obligation, there is uncertainty as to what will happen after 2027, when Ofgem will stop issuing ROCs. The Government have said that projects will see a “grandfathered transition” to a fixed price regime through to 2037, when all ROCs will finish. However, it is uncertain from the Bill whether all projects will be eligible for the new fixed price instrument, and whether the value will be equivalent to standard ROC payments.”
“It was encouraging to hear the Minister talk about the consultation document that has just been published. However, that consultation will take time and then further time will be taken in making decisions. It is intended that these decisions will be implemented not through primary legislation but through secondary legislation. Because of that, and the uncertainty over the state aid issue, it will take some significant and powerful signals from the Government to ensure that the final investment decisions which are so crucial to achieving these targets are kept on track. That is the background to the matter. We must ensure that this transition from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference is as smooth as possible.”
“For example, the latest renewables statistics talk about offshore renewables generation rising from 3 gigawatts today to 18 gigawatts in 2020. That is 15 gigawatts more in a difficult offshore environment. Taking early final investment decisions will be crucial to the construction and commissioning of that generation. The onshore figure of 6 gigawatts today, which is double that of offshore, rises to 13 gigawatts by 2020, which, again, is a very major increase. One of the purposes of tabling these amendments is to help the Government to deliver their policy in this area given that they are clear that they want to deliver this increase in generation and want to provide certainty. Indeed, they have made helpful and supportive statements on these issues. Timing is very important here as regards secondary legislation.”
“My Lords, in moving Amendment 55AK, I wish to speak also to Amendment 55AL, both of which stand in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. In doing so, I refer to my entry in the Register of Interests. This matter follows on from the discussion we have just had involving the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who raised important issues to do with the transition from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference. It is not an understatement to say that there is huge concern in certain sections of the renewables industry about this issue. Those sections of the renewables industry are important as they will be relied on to deliver the very major increase in renewables generation that the Government are hoping to see by 2020, given the £110 billion of new investment and the huge increase in renewables capacity.”
“It is as simple as that. However, on the basis of the strong reassurances that I received from the Minister at the end of his remarks, which I very much welcome, I am prepared to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.”
“It must all happen before March 2017, unless such projects at the margin are eligible for the discretionary arrangements to which the noble Baroness referred. That is the strong clarification that I would like to receive in terms of why this discretion is necessary. If I do not get that changed, I will continue to make the analogy with Spain, which was where the panic was created—and not just there but globally throughout the renewables sector. If any Government said, “We are committed to renewables but, by the way, this project that you invested in last year, where you committed funding and had bank commitments in place, is now going to be subject to a change in government support”, that is very bad news. If that were a possibility in terms of the grandfathering rights, they would not be grandfathering rights at all.”
“I very much welcome the words of my noble friend at the end of his remarks. They were most encouraging and I am sure will be welcomed by the industry. I hope that what he said about retaining the discretion to make changes can be further clarified in due course because the way that he explained it, as my noble friend Lord Teverson pointed out, could continue the fear in the hearts of the industry. Surely the discretion to change must be about new schemes or future projects—for example, changes to the feed-in tariff related to new schemes; changes to the renewables obligation going from one ROC to 0.9 ROC were about new projects that would be commissioned after a particular date. Just to be clear, we are talking here about projects that will have been invested in, commissioned and generating before 2017.”
“It was bought in at the initiative of the Secretary of State to try to strengthen the Bill. It can be a very important part of the Bill but I do not think that it should be used as some sort of battering ram to undermine its foundations which relate to the contracts for difference, the balancing payments and so on. The important message that we have to get out to the industry not only in the UK but throughout the world is that we are serious about moving forward the renewables sector, we want to move to this new system as quickly as possible and that there has already been too much delay.”
“That is what industry is looking for. I was very influenced by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at Second Reading. He was quite right in what he said about industry in the United Kingdom. I think that ScottishPower, SSE and a number of companies that are based here would be relatively relaxed about the date being fixed in 2016. However, overseas investors such as Gamesa, Siemens, Mitsubishi and Samsung which are making commitments to this country, are looking all the time at how this is playing out in the media. They are getting briefings and reports back and are looking at what the renewables sector, the Government and parliamentarians are saying. This issue now has a very high profile. I go out of my way to explain that the decarbonisation target is not some totemic issue that is absolutely central to the Energy Bill.”
“I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. I would be very happy if a decarbonisation target was set in 2014, but I would not die in a ditch over it; I would be prepared to see a later date. There are good reasons, to do with the European Union and the report from the committee, why 2016 could be a reasonable date. By tabling Amendment 7, I wanted to test the view of Parliament on all this—not today obviously; today, I just want to put the argument out there. The amendment states: “A decarbonisation order must be made by 31 December 2016”. That does not prevent an order being made next week—it could be 2014; it could be sooner—but it gives reasonable flexibility to the Secretary of State and allows confidence to be given to the industry that we are serious about this Part 1 and about decarbonisation.”
“All that pushed the Bill back and it led to criticism. In this area, therefore, it is clear to me that some sort of compromise was pulled together. I do not say that in a derogatory way—compromise is the very essence of reaching agreement in coalition—but it left us with the possibility of delay in introducing a decarbonisation target. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, correctly pointed out that that is not the most concerning aspect, but there is also the fact that the whole of the first part of Bill, which is on decarbonisation, effectively becomes optional. That is the greatest concern that I have as a Liberal Democrat. Looking at the negotiations and wondering about how these compromises were reached, I am left hanging on to the belief that this important decarbonisation part of the Bill should not be left optional.”
“I am particularly curious about the words “may not be made”, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, this should be about flexibility and empowering. Why, then, are we saying that the decision “may not be made” until after 2016? Why not give flexibility to the Secretary of State? I suspect that it is because there was a difficulty in the negotiations. A lot that was achieved by Ed Davey, the Secretary of State, is in the Bill, but not everything. That is no secret; there has been quite a lot in the media about how difficult the negotiation has been. In fact, the negotiation involved delay and a lack of clarity, and some really quite central issues to do with the support to be given to the renewables sector were thrashed out between the Conservative side and Liberal Democrat side of the Government.”
“When you see more words, or more complex wording, on a particular issue, you know that there has been tough coalition discussion—that is probably the safest way to describe it. Here, you see the extraordinary sight of us introducing a decarbonisation section, but some of the wording is really quite complex, most clearly in Clause 1(5), where we are trying to fix a date. It states: “The earliest year in relation to which a decarbonisation target range may be set is 2030”. That is pretty straightforward and simple, but the next bit is not, stating that, “the first decarbonisation order may not be made before the date on which the carbon budget for the budgetary period which includes the year 2030 is set by virtue of the duty of the Secretary of State under section 4(2)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008”.”
“I must say, I smiled a little when I heard criticism being made of whipped votes, and the idea that the Labour Party would ever play any of these devilish games made me reflect on some of the very tough and difficult negotiations that I was involved with in Scotland, some of them on energy matters. When we reached an agreement, it was important that we were able to deliver that vote in the Parliament. I think every politician here understands that principle, as do the Cross-Benchers. In the United Kingdom, we are still relatively new to coalition politics and we should be open about it. We should try to explain more often and more clearly some of the negotiations and difficulties involved in reaching agreement. One way to find the areas of greatest difficulty is to look at the wording.”
“It sends out a very powerful message to the industry and those who are concerned about climate change that the United Kingdom is not only concerned about this issue but wants to be leading the argument in favour of decarbonisation and decarbonisation targets. It was a very considerable success for the new Secretary of State, Ed Davey, to have agreed the insertion of this decarbonisation section. Coming from Scotland, I am very interested in the politics of coalition. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to this earlier. I was in government for eight years in Scotland in a coalition with the Labour Party.”
“My Lords, I want to follow up on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I think they were important. I refer to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests . I support the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, in his Amendments 2, 3 and 4 and will also speak to my Amendment 7. Amendment 7 explores the issue of the date and whether it should be 2014 or 2016. First, it is very important that there is now a decarbonisation section of this Bill. Noble Lords should remember that when this draft Bill was first published, there was no decarbonisation section, so it is a very important shift.”
“A Bill on its own will not be enough. In summary, we need to get on with it. Let us have no more delays or divisions but instead show political clarity and unity in order to deliver the confidence needed to create thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of new investment and cleaner, greener and more secure energy for everyone in the UK—for business and for consumers. There are many other countries investing in renewable energy where the sort of political divisions that we have witnessed this afternoon simply do not happen. They are going for it and doing so with absolute determination, conviction and commitment. The Bill can help us to do that in the United Kingdom, and it must do exactly that. It should therefore be supported.”
“There should be a requirement on the Government to fix a decarbonisation target. I want to make two final points. The first is on energy efficiency and demand reduction. There is huge potential in these areas, which are vital. They have been neglected areas of energy policy for too long. However, switching from fossil fuel—not just for electricity but also for our heating and our transport—will require very significant amounts of electric energy. That always has to be remembered. Secondly, community renewable schemes are vital. The Bill rightly encourages them and will do more to support them. However, in the real world—in the practical world of finance—the current problems with the Co-operative Bank could be very damaging to many community projects. I believe that a great deal will have to be done to keep these projects alive.”
“There is no bigger issue facing the future of our planet, which is why this debate today is so important. That brings us to decarbonisation. I would far rather see a decarbonisation target coming sooner. It is another area of coalition dispute—another Treasury versus DECC battle. There was no target in the original Bill, however, and I am very pleased that there is now provision for a decarbonisation target. Although I would be prepared to wait until 2016, the acid test will be the response and the attitude of others. Major investors, manufacturers of turbines, those involved in the renewable sector, those who make the final investment decisions, have made it very clear that they are looking for a strong decarbonisation target to support their investments. I certainly believe that it should not be an enabling or an optional provision.”
“It has a very long half-life. The nuclear sector relies on a depleting uranium supply from uncertain sources in politically unstable nations. Fusion would be a wholly different thing but we are far from there yet. Perhaps most importantly, investment in nuclear tends to reduce the urgency of the investment in renewables. As I have already mentioned, it could also lead to a delay in state aid clearance for contracts for difference, and clearly a huge amount of government resource has been taken up in the negotiations with EDF on the whole nuclear issue. We need a simple and clear determination to stop burning fossil fuels. It is a declining resource. It will also be increasingly expensive, even if there are short-term reductions. It is a very damaging and polluting resource that causes climate change and global warming.”
“However, ROCs did at least create certainty and confidence in the industry. Contracts for difference are theoretically better, but the change has to be well handled to maintain confidence. So far that has not happened. Squabbling, as I mentioned, has led to a loss of confidence and the delay has created the sort of uncertainty that no industrial sector likes. There is also a degree of illogicality in those who talk about being anti-onshore wind but in favour of offshore wind. If you want to protect the consumer and keep prices down, offshore wind is—as has been mentioned already today—much more expensive than onshore wind. As for nuclear, I still have very serious concerns. It is slow to deliver. It is expensive. More than 60% of DECC’s budget is currently spent on nuclear. The nuclear waste is toxic and dangerous.”
“There is overwhelming evidence and overwhelming agreement about that among the scientists, the economists and other experts. We have heard it from the very good contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Stern and Lord Deben. Global warming and climate change is perhaps an inconvenient truth but it is a truth nevertheless—and it is one that must be tackled now. The climate change deniers have got to be challenged. Do they have overwhelming, incontrovertible, infallible evidence on their side? To that I would say, “No, no and no again”. The Bill is a crucial and very major reform. The ROC system is far from ideal. It is a system under which subsidy stays high even if electricity prices rise. Consumers’ money can therefore be very considerably wasted. It was a pretty complex and very British—solely British—solution.”
“It would be straightforward to get state aid clearance if this were only about renewables but it is not only about renewables, it is about nuclear as well. I worry about the potential delay and the impact that that could have on final investment decisions in the renewables sector. It is crucial to have continuity, consistency, clarity of political purpose and political support. In too many aspects of the industry, investment is stalled right now. Major international investors are voting with their feet and going elsewhere. I would predict that some of the big announcements that have been made—for example by turbine manufacturers—about inward investments into the UK will not happen due to the lack of continuity and the lack of clear political commitment. That is a real cause for worry. Tackling climate change is urgent. It cannot wait.”
“More could start to be done in the Bill to encourage that. All of this represents a huge opportunity to the UK economy. The Minister said that there will be £110 billion of investment this decade and £7.6 billion per year by 2020. However, it has not happened yet. There needs to be real industry confidence. That confidence has been severely dented by delay and by the DECC versus the Treasury battle—the Conservative-Liberal Democrat battle—that we have witnessed over recent months and has been played out in the media. That sort of squabbling has done real damage. It is crucial to get not only a confirmed strike price but also EU clearance and political harmony on all of this. I worry about EU clearance.”
“In the short to medium term, the capacity market for gas will be crucial in keeping the lights on. The capacity market has not been an issue of huge political debate. It does not get hearts racing in the other place or on the Floor of this House, but it is very important to get it right. The first thing to happen will not be a switching-off of the lights; it will be instructions to major industrial users to stop using electricity. That will be very serious for our economy and for the messages that it sends out. All those are good points in relation to the detail. In relation to the capacity market, I would be very pleased if more were being said—particularly in the medium to long term—to encourage the storage of renewable power. That is crucial to the credibility of the renewable sector.”
“My Lords, I start by referring to my interests as listed in the Members’ register. This is an overwhelmingly positive Bill with overwhelming but not—as we have seen clearly today—unanimous support across the political parties and, indeed, the Cross Benches. Many positive changes have been made to the detail of the Bill and much of that detail is now absolutely correct. Some of the changes—for example in relation to the counterparty—have been referenced already. Having the Government underwrite the counterparty role is vital. The proposal to move the feed-in tariff limit from 5 megawatts to 10 megawatts is very welcome, while the early release next month of the draft EMR delivery plan, with the information on the strike price for the contracts for difference, will be crucial.”
“That is also good news. We then come to the third issue about fairness, on which I want to spend a little time. It has been covered pretty fully already, but it is vital that the referendum is fair if it is to command respect. We already know the SNP-preferred referendum question. We know the question that the Government in Scotland want to ask and it is not fair; it is a biased question. My noble friend Lord Forsyth helpfully quotes it in his amendment, which asks: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”. That is a rigged question on at least two grounds. I am not a great expert on these psephological matters but those who are explain that if you ask people to agree with you—do you like my tie, do you like my new haircut, do you like whatever principle—they will tend to agree in response.”
“In my view it was pretty clear, but some would say that it was a matter of doubt whether the Scottish Parliament had the legal powers to hold a referendum on independence. It is clear that those powers had not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that doubt will be removed today by the passing of this order. That is good. Secondly, as has been mentioned by others, it will now be a decisive referendum. There will be one question only. Despite the views, interestingly, of his party, which wanted one question, the First Minister wanted two questions. Clearly, he wanted an escape route. He wanted the cover and protection of a second question on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but that emergency exit is now being removed. There will be a simple yes/no question, which means that the decision will be clear cut.”
“Michael Moore, as Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Prime Minister deserve great credit for delivering the Edinburgh agreement. Michael Moore skilfully negotiated, no doubt with the support of my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General for Scotland, an agreement that all sides agree is a good start, and a good way forward. It has been agreed by the Prime Minister, the Scottish Secretary, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that it is central to the principles underpinning this referendum that it should be legal, decisive and fair. Let us take those tests in turn. First, it will now be legal, by the securing today of this Section 30 Motion and its approval under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998.”
“My Lords, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord on that issue of service men and women of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland, who should have the opportunity to vote in this referendum. The issue was raised yesterday in the other place in many good speeches on this Section 30 Motion. I listened to a great deal of that debate yesterday, and although there was full cross-party consensus on the approval of the Motion, there was also, outside the nationalists, cross-party concern. That concern is shared by me and by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, as reflected forcefully in his remarks this afternoon, and clearly in the terms of his two amendments. Before focusing on that concern, we should recognise the good points of what has been achieved and of this Motion.”
“If this referendum is not based on a neutral question, it will be biased; if it is biased, it will not be fair; and if it is not fair, that will be a breach of the Edinburgh agreement to be “legal”, “fair” and “decisive”. In my view, we will then have a serious constitutional crisis. I trust that can be avoided and that the First Minister can rise above narrow partisanship and set a tone for this referendum that will command all-party respect right across the whole of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. On that basis, we should pass the Motion today, but remain fiercely, ferociously and for ever vigilant about the dangers that lie ahead, which could have such profound implications for both Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom if some of the fears mentioned today come to pass.”
“Of course, as has been said, they have form on these issues of fairness, honesty and integrity—the very recent form that has been referred to, when the First Minister failed to tell Andrew Neil of the BBC the truth about whether he had taken legal advice on Scotland’s EU membership and the Scottish Government then used taxpayers’ money in the courts to resist revealing legal advice that the Scottish Government had never taken. That is the sort of “Alex in Wonderland”, topsy-turvy situation that we are dealing with. There is no honesty, integrity and consistency in a position such as that. However, there is a deeply serious and worrying point.”
“Well, no, because although it is both the player and the referee, it has made clear that the recommendations of the Electoral Commission are not binding on the Scottish Government and Parliament. Angus Robertson, in the House of Commons yesterday, and Alex Salmond, the First Minister, on Radio 4 this morning, have been given ample opportunity to make it clear, as the other leaders in the Scottish Parliament have done, that they would accept the views of the Electoral Commission on this crucial issue of bias and of avoiding anything other than an objective, neutral and fair question. They have a mantra now, to get them out of the difficult question. The Electoral Commission will advise, says the First Minister. The Scottish Government will recommend and the Scottish Parliament will decide.”
“Some say it would make only a small difference, of maybe 2% or 3% either way. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has referred to the situation in Quebec. Some are saying it would be more than that, some less. Percentages are a curious thing, are they not? If British Airways downgraded its expectations of successful landings at Heathrow by 2% or 3%, international air travel would be killed overnight. If a casino said that a roulette wheel had a built-in bias in its favour of 2% or 3%, I dare say that many gamblers might still take the chance. We should not be gambling, however, with our nation’s future. Finally, there is the issue of who decides in all of this. Is it the Electoral Commission? No, it is quite clearly the SNP, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament that will decide the question. Can we trust the SNP on this issue?”
“I was also greatly encouraged when I saw John McCormick, who many people in this Chamber will know is the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, being interviewed on this issue by the BBC. He said that it was crucial that the question put to voters was clear, simple and neutral and went on to say, very importantly, that in his view the question was the foundation—the bedrock —on which this referendum would be built. If it was flawed or biased, the whole process would be flawed and biased. I agree with him completely. I do not agree with those who say the question does not really matter and that by voting day everyone will be pretty much clear on what the referendum is about—being in or out of the United Kingdom. It is important that the question is fair and commands respect on all sides from the start.”
“Indeed. Those who know about these matters say that is the first element of rigging of the question. Secondly, and on this I am more familiar because it is surely a matter of law, and of international law at that, is the issue of whether you want Scotland to be an independent country. The correct question, I am told, is whether it should be an independent or a separate state. That is not the wording that the SNP proposes. Scotland is already a country; some people in this Chamber who are fierce unionists have already said they believe it is an independent country. I am very pleased that the Edinburgh agreement sets out that the conduct of the referendum is to be overseen by the UK Electoral Commission—not a separate Scottish body—which is seen to be fair and objective and neutral. That is wholly good news.”
“That miscarriage of justice cannot be remedied or changed, but the law can be corrected and put right. That is what we must do.”
“I am interested also in confirming the powers that a sheriff or a judge might have against a partnership. The Bill envisages that the powers would relate only to imposing a fine. Could a judge impose other sanctions? For example, would they have the power to seize or confiscate assets, withdraw licences, and dissolve the partnership or prevent it carrying on trading? The range of sentences, and how they might be enforced against the partnership and against individual partners, is of real interest to me. I will close with the following thoughts. At Rosepark we know that the partnership, and individual partners, should have been held accountable. We know that the partners were Thomas, Anne and Alan Balmer. It is a matter of huge regret, and a very deep failure of Scotland’s justice system, that there was no successful prosecution.”
“The Advocate-General went out of his way to emphasise that the intention was that any new partner should not be caught by prosecution. However, I still worry that liability for a fine could fall—and even fall disproportionately—on a new partner. Perhaps some comfort could be given on that. Clause 4(1)(b) refers to a situation where, “the partnership continues to carry on business after the change”. Why was this felt to be required, and how will we define “carrying on business”? For example, could there be unintended consequences? Could a firm be defined as carrying on business when it was no longer able to trade: for example, if its licence had been withdrawn because of regulatory breaches or if its place of business had been destroyed by fire? Could there be unintended consequences from this wording?”
“It is important to emphasise that it is very unlikely that it will be elderly people killed in a fire in a care home who will benefit from this legislation. However, I believe that many others will benefit through its introduction. I have a few technical questions and concerns. A number of us have detailed legal questions. Some of us are lawyers or former lawyers. I realise that a lot of hard work has already been done on this by many eminent lawyers, so I hope that all the answers will be easy, sound and solid. Evasion of criminal liability is the main issue that we want to tackle. Clearly it is being tackled as the central pillar of the legislation. I remain concerned about the potential for evasion of any fine imposed following a successful prosecution. I am also concerned that any new partner could become unwittingly liable.”
“The gap in Scottish law on this issue has been well explained and the need for action is clear. The role of the Scottish Law Commission has been entirely positive in this. Usually it reports to the Scottish Government and Parliament. It is very encouraging that the matter has been tackled swiftly and positively by the UK Parliament and Government working alongside the Scottish Parliament and Government. There has been no constitutional wrangling on the issue—simply a desire to find a fair and effective solution. The benefit will not be to the deceased of Rosepark or to their relatives. I hope that the latter will take some comfort from the benefits that should come to others in future.”
“He said that the “critical failing” was not to identify residents at the home as being at risk in the event of a fire, as well as failing to consider the “worst-case scenario” of a fire breaking out at night. A further “serious deficiency” was found in the “limited attention” given to how residents would escape from the home in the event of a fire. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has already gone into detail about how Brian Lockhart believes that the lives of Isabella MacLachlan, Margaret Gow, Isabella MacLeod and Robina Burns could have been saved, that there were shortcomings in dialling 999 and that a delay was caused by the fire brigade going to the wrong entrance. In other words, this was not a single fault. As is so often the case with a terrible tragedy, many errors accumulated to create a major disaster.”
“Subsequent to the final prosecution, it was decided to hold a fatal accident inquiry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has explained, there were some very serious findings at the end of that inquiry which took place over 141 days. Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart began the fatal accident inquiry in February 2010 and it reported in April 2011. He found that “some or all” of the deaths could have been prevented if the home had had a “suitable and sufficient” fire safety plan. He concluded: “The management of fire safety at Rosepark was systematically and seriously defective. The deficiencies in the management of fire safety at Rosepark contributed to the deaths. Management did not have a proper appreciation of its role and responsibilities in relation to issues of fire safety”.”
“Although nothing could have been done to bring back those who died, the events subsequently have been most unfortunate. It is important that we now take action to remedy the wrong. All three prosecutions failed. Rosepark care home and its partners, Thomas, Anne and Alan Balmer, have never been successfully prosecuted. There is a sense that there has been a real miscarriage of justice here. It is important to remember that in the third and final prosecution, for example, more than 30 charges were on the indictment, including contraventions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, related contraventions of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and 1999, and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997. These were extensive and very serious issues.”