My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this short order. In response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, perhaps I may note one or two points. In relation to the approach to consultation, it was as a result of an urgency perceived by Scottish Ministers that the sums of money which were potentially at risk were so large that relatively speedy action was required. In particular, they see this as a means whereby contingency sums may be freed up—some £50 million—in order that that might be, in their view, put in other directions.
As regards the number of claims, so far as I am aware from the Scottish Ministers, they assess that there are 28,000 potential claims, and it was for that purpose that the Ministers required to set aside this not insignificant sum. The sums of compensation that have, in fact, been paid to date amount to £7.9 million, according to Scottish Executive figures, with an additional figure in respect of legal expenses that takes the total to £11.3 million.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I very much welcome his support for this order, and I immediately confirm that its purpose is to pave matters as a way forward for the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord raised a point about delay and the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice sent his letter on 25 October 2007. That was probably the day after the Judicial Committee’s decision. It may seem that the period that has elapsed is more than perhaps the noble Lord would have chosen However, one was looking at the interplay between the Human Rights Act and the Scotland Act. While one view might perceive this as a mere anomaly, for the reasons the noble Lord suggested, there is also a question of whether there is some constitutional issue which might not be perceived as quite so straightforward. In the result, discussions produced an agreement as to a way forward and any perceived constitutional difficulties were overcome and put to one side.
On the effect of what the Scottish Parliament may do under its Acts in relation to existing cases, there is no intention, and it probably would not be lawful, for any such effect in any way to remove an existing right.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kelly, asks that perhaps I might afford him some pleasure by way of moving to a federal state or a confederal state. I regret to say that I must deny him that pleasure.
Unless there are any further points, I commend this order to the House.
Motion agreed.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 4) Order 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 May 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 4) Order 2009.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c1365-6 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:51:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560147
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560147
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560147